from: rubstello, patty [email protected] subject: … prr 2010 emails.pdf · analysis on hov 3+...

From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: Fw: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOTDate: 2/24/2010 7:44:09 PMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

What do you think?

----- Original Message -----From: Edward Mark <[email protected]>To: Tobin, VictoriaCc: arthur O'Connor <[email protected]>; Fred Libove <[email protected]>; Jim Davis <[email protected]>; Rubstello, PattySent: Wed Feb 24 17:49:47 2010Subject: Re: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOT

Victoria,

Great to talk to you are regarding the opportunity for NYSDOT tosponsor a focused peer review of the lessons learned from the UPAmulti-modal program and integrated transportation projects in theSeattle area which would be hosted in NYC based on a hopefullysuccessful proposal to FHWA.

NYSDOT is in the process of applying to FHWA for a Deployment ActivityFund grant to support a workshop in NYC based on lessons learned to datefrom the integrated deployment of UPA projects (I-90 / Sr 520), variablepricing / HOV, transit enhancements / TDM and the deployment ofActive Traffic Management along I-5. The lessons learned from theDesign Build process being used to design and deploy the active trafficmanagement infrastructure would also be of great interest to NYSDOT andits partner agencies.

Based on FHWA approving its Deployment Activity Fund proposal (to besubmitted this week to FHWA) NYSDOT, in partnership with its agencypartners and the MPO would fully support a 1.0 - 1.5 day workshop in NYCincluding three nights in NYC, per diem expenses and travel to / fromSeattle for four panelists representing WDOT.

NYSDOT would also incorporate into the workshop tours and presentationsrelating the NYC Joint Transportation Management Center (JTMC), NYCEmergency Management Center, multi-agency, ITS / incident managementand existing / planned HOV / BRT / TDM programs.

NYSDOT in working with its partners is looking to develop managedtransportation corridors integrated with the ITS and transit operationsin NYC and the adjoining suburban areas. The lessons learned WDOT basedin the Seattle experience should provide an opportunity to demonstratethat integrated innovative solutions can be designed / deployed throughan fast tracked program to enhance mobility and improve safety.

I will be in touch over the next couple days. Thank you for theopportunity to request that WDOT's participate the focused peer reviewin NYC as outlined above.

From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Hammond; PaulaCc: Ehl; Larry; Rubstello; Patty; Dye; Dave; Aldridge; JoSubject: FW: UPA HOV 3+ PaperDate: 2/25/2010 9:36:59 PMAttachments: 20100223 Mathis FHA UPA Letter Sent.pdf; 20100223 SR 520 HOV 3 Decision PaperFINAL.pdf; SR520 Discount White Paper.pdf; WSDOT.Hammond.Response.JY.VMM-9-22-09.pdf

Paula - Key messages for your 30 minute meeting with Jeff Lindley and Bob Arnold.

1) We appreciate the working relationship with FHWA on the UPA and revising the implementation schedule toalign with our 2009 Leg authorization for SR 520 tolling. We need to bring to closure our request to revise theconditions language to allow transit and agency vanpools free access and to remove the requirement for anHOV 3+ discount.

2) We have prepared an engineering analysis to evaluate if we could technically delineate a location on SR 520to indentify carpools. We worked with FHWA staff on the outline of this engineering analysis, as a follow-ondocument to our August white paper. Major findings are:

Enforcement is nearly impossible given that we have no physical location for WSP to identify and citeviolators. Current HOV violation rate is 30%.Major reconstruction of the corridor will be occurring that will take the westbound HOV lane out ofoperations during off peak periods, plus there is no eastbound HOV lane in the corridor to delineatecarpools. Creates inconsistencies to drivers.Decrease in safety is projected due to increasing weaving and merging densities approaching the bridge.Increased congestion due to increasing weaving and merging volumes is also projected which will dictatehigher toll rates and less efficient operations.

3) FHWA's last letter indicated that the HOV discount was a contributing reason this project was selected. Review of our UPA application reads:

Congestion pricing will initially be implemented on SR 520 and possibly on I-90 between I-405 and I-5. Toll rateswill vary according to congestion levels to keep traffic flowing efficiently while also providing needed revenue forthe SR 520 bridge replacement. WSDOT will not propose tolls for transit trips. As part of this work, WSDOT and itspartners will determine the benefits and disadvantages of tolling HOV and vanpool trips.

4) No one has ever implemented all electronic and variable tolling on an existing operating facility. Credibility isimportant to making this UPA successful. A lesson learned from the road pricing scan tour is to keep the tolloperations simple and understandable.

Craig

From: Rubstello, PattySent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 4:45 PMTo: [email protected]; Bob ArnoldCc: 'Yung, Jessie <FHWA>'; Stone, CraigSubject: FW: UPA HOV 3+ Paper

Mr. Lindley and Mr. Arnold,

I'm forwarding to you, on behalf of Craig Stone WSDOT's Tolling Division Director, our letter and engineeringanalysis on HOV 3+ discounts as it relates to our UPA project on SR 520.

It is my understanding through a discussion with our Secretary, Paula Hammond, that she will be meeting withboth of you next week. Paula is prepared to discuss this topic next week if time allows.

Please let me know if the attachments do not come through on your end.

Patty Rubstello

Patty Rubstello, PEWSDOT - Toll Division

Director of Toll Systems Development & Engineering

(206)464-1299

From: Rubstello, PattySent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 1:24 PMTo: 'Mathis, Daniel'Cc: 'Colyar, James (FHWA)'; 'Yung, Jessie <FHWA>'; Gehrke, Linda (FTA)Subject: UPA HOV 3+ Paper

Dan,

On behalf of Craig Stone, I'm forwarding you WSDOT's letter and engineering analysis on HOV 3+ discounts asrequired in the UPA term sheet. Please let us know if you have questions.

As an FYI: Paula Hammond will be in DC next week. She will be meeting with Bob Arnold and Jeff Lindley whilethere. We will have her briefed on this topic in case they have time to discuss.

The hard copy of the letter and report will be in the mail today.

Patty

Patty Rubstello, PEWSDOT - Toll Division

Director of Toll Systems Development & Engineering

(206)464-1299

From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Rubstello; PattyCc:Subject: RE: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOTDate: 3/4/2010 1:44:12 AMAttachments:

Have we heard more? Talked with Dave and he was good if travel is paid for. I suggested three folks would gofrom WSDOT. If NYSDOT gets the fed funding approval, we should talk with Edward and get a better feel forwhat they are looking for so we can best meet their needs. At this point, based on what you and I talked aboutmy prelim names are Mark, Jennifer and myself. If we go, I also would like to visit the NY/NJ Port Authority andhow they are managing their toll facilities.

From: Rubstello, PattySent: Wed 2/24/2010 6:44 PMTo: Stone, CraigSubject: Fw: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOT

What do you think?

----- Original Message -----From: Edward Mark <[email protected]>To: Tobin, VictoriaCc: arthur O'Connor <[email protected]>; Fred Libove <[email protected]>; Jim Davis<[email protected]>; Rubstello, Patty

Sent: Wed Feb 24 17:49:47 2010Subject: Re: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOT

Victoria,



Based on FHWA approving its Deployment Activity Fund proposal (to besubmitted this week to FHWA) NYSDOT, in partnership with its agencypartners and the MPO would fully support a 1.0 - 1.5 day workshop in NYC

including three nights in NYC, per diem expenses and travel to / fromSeattle for four panelists representing WDOT.




From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: RE: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOTDate: 3/4/2010 10:53:41 AMAttachments:

Nothing yet. I did send Ed an email saying we needed to get an ok from our executives, would like to discussmore in detail what they were looking for so we send the right people, and asked when they thought the visitwould occur. Have yet to get a response. Just sent him another email saying we were good to travel. Will letyou know when I hear back from him.

From: Stone, CraigSent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 5:44 PMTo: Rubstello, PattySubject: RE: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOT

Have we heard more? Talked with Dave and he was good if travel is paid for. I suggested three folks would gofrom WSDOT. If NYSDOT gets the fed funding approval, we should talk with Edward and get a better feel forwhat they are looking for so we can best meet their needs. At this point, based on what you and I talked aboutmy prelim names are Mark, Jennifer and myself. If we go, I also would like to visit the NY/NJ Port Authority andhow they are managing their toll facilities.

From: Rubstello, PattySent: Wed 2/24/2010 6:44 PMTo: Stone, CraigSubject: Fw: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOT

What do you think?

----- Original Message -----From: Edward Mark <[email protected]>To: Tobin, VictoriaCc: arthur O'Connor <[email protected]>; Fred Libove <[email protected]>; Jim Davis<[email protected]>; Rubstello, Patty

Sent: Wed Feb 24 17:49:47 2010Subject: Re: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOT

Victoria,



Based on FHWA approving its Deployment Activity Fund proposal (to besubmitted this week to FHWA) NYSDOT, in partnership with its agencypartners and the MPO would fully support a 1.0 - 1.5 day workshop in NYCincluding three nights in NYC, per diem expenses and travel to / fromSeattle for four panelists representing WDOT.




From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: FW: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOTDate: 3/4/2010 2:02:09 PMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like New York think it could take a bit longer to hear on the peer exchange due to the Fed funding issues.

-----Original Message-----From: Edward Mark [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 12:25 PMTo: Rubstello, PattySubject: RE: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOT

Patty,

Thank you for getting back to me. I have been out of the office for a few days so I apologize for any delay in getting back to you. Great to hear that WDOT will permit its staff to participate in the peer review if federal funding is available.

An application for FHWA T2 / Deployment funding was transmitted by the NYC FHWA Metro Office to the Divisional office on the 26th. Because of the disruption to funding of FHWA, its potential impact on the process to obtain a training grant is unknown at this time. It may take time longer than expected to be notified by FHWA that a portion if not all of the requested funding would be available for this project.

I will keep informed.

>>> "Rubstello, Patty" <[email protected]> 3/4/2010 12:37 PM >>>Just found out the WSDOT can participate in your peer review if you get the approval from the feds. Just let me know and we can start planning.

Should be exciting!

Patty

-----Original Message-----From: Rubstello, PattySent: Friday, February 26, 2010 4:10 PMTo: '[email protected]: Re: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOT

Ed,

Victoria let me know she had spoken with you on this exciting event you are planning. We are very interested in helping out but we'll need to do some executive verification to ensure we can actually travel to New York. We are under a lot of pressure to not travel but we usually can get the approval when someone else is paying.

I'm hoping to have an answer for you later next week if its a 'go' or 'no go'. Once you have the approval on your end, we can discuss who from WSDOT you would like to come out. I've got some ideas but would like to know a bit more about the various areas/issues you would like us to address.

Do you have a month in mind for the peer to peer event?

----- Original Message -----From: Edward Mark <[email protected]>To: Tobin, VictoriaCc: arthur O'Connor <[email protected]>; Fred Libove <[email protected]>; Jim Davis <[email protected]>; Rubstello, PattySent: Wed Feb 24 17:49:47 2010Subject: Re: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOT

Victoria,

Great to talk to you are regarding the opportunity for NYSDOT to sponsor a focused peer review of the lessons learned from the UPA multi-modal program and integrated transportation projects in the Seattle area which would be hosted in NYC based on a hopefully successful proposal to FHWA.

NYSDOT is in the process of applying to FHWA for a Deployment Activity Fund grant to support a workshop in NYC based on lessons learned to date from the integrated deployment of UPA projects (I-90 / Sr 520), variable pricing / HOV, transit enhancements / TDM and the deployment of Active Traffic Management along I-5. The lessons learned from the Design Build process being used to design and deploy the active traffic management infrastructure would also be of great interest to NYSDOT and its partner agencies.

Based on FHWA approving its Deployment Activity Fund proposal (to be submitted this week to FHWA) NYSDOT, in partnership with its agency partners and the MPO would fully support a 1.0 - 1.5 day workshop in NYC including three nights in NYC, per diem expenses and travel to / from Seattle for four panelists representing WDOT.

NYSDOT would also incorporate into the workshop tours and presentations relating the NYC Joint Transportation Management Center (JTMC), NYC Emergency Management Center, multi-agency, ITS / incident management and existing / planned HOV / BRT / TDM programs.

NYSDOT in working with its partners is looking to develop managed transportation corridors integrated with the ITS and transit operations in NYC and the adjoining suburban areas. The lessons learned WDOT based in the Seattle experience should provide an opportunity to demonstrate that integrated innovative solutions can be designed / deployed through an fast tracked program to enhance mobility and improve safety.

I will be in touch over the next couple days. Thank you for the opportunity to request that WDOT's participate the focused peer reviewin NYC as outlined above.

From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: Fw: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOTDate: 3/4/2010 6:49:50 PMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

Can't get Ed to give me an indication on when the peer meeting will be. But looking at his last email, this looks to be a pretty big production.

----- Original Message -----From: Edward Mark <[email protected]>To: Rubstello, PattySent: Thu Mar 04 16:23:18 2010Subject: Re: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOT

Patty,

With FHWA now back on line I have been happily informed that the grantapplication for this project has been approved by the FHWA Divisionaloffice for final review by the FHWA Washington D.C. office along withthree other grant proposals. Included in this proposal is funding tosupport a joint peer review for WDOT staff in NYC. If WDOT permits,there would be funding to support four staff representing NYSDOT andpossibly other agencies to travel to Seattle for a continuation of a thejoint peer information exchange. Also added, is funding to support aWebinar that would be jointly presented in conjunction with FHWA andappropriate TRB committees.

If there is any problem with a joint peer review program concept asoutlined above please let me know. I will immediately inform you when Ilearn more regarding the time line for a final decision by FHWA.

>>> "Rubstello, Patty" <[email protected]> 3/4/2010 6:33 PM >>>I understand the issue with the federal budget challenges. Had thatnot happened, when were you thinking this meeting would have occurred?

----- Original Message -----From: Edward Mark <[email protected]>To: Rubstello, PattySent: Thu Mar 04 12:24:34 2010Subject: RE: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOT

Patty,

Thank you for getting back to me. I have been out of the office for afew days so I apologize for any delay in getting back to you. Greattohear that WDOT will permit its staff to participate in the peer reviewif federal funding is available.

An application for FHWA T2 / Deployment funding was transmitted by theNYC FHWA Metro Office to the Divisional office on the 26th. Becauseof

the disruption to funding of FHWA, its potential impact on the processto obtain a training grant is unknown at this time. It may take timelonger than expected to be notified by FHWA that a portion if not allofthe requested funding would be available for this project.

I will keep informed.

>>> "Rubstello, Patty" <[email protected]> 3/4/2010 12:37 PM >>>Just found out the WSDOT can participate in your peer review if yougetthe approval from the feds. Just let me know and we can startplanning.

Should be exciting!

Patty


Ed,

Victoria let me know she had spoken with you on this exciting eventyouare planning. We are very interested in helping out but we'll need todo some executive verification to ensure we can actually travel to NewYork. We are under a lot of pressure to not travel but we usually canget the approval when someone else is paying.

I'm hoping to have an answer for you later next week if its a 'go' orno go'. Once you have the approval on your end, we can discuss whofrom WSDOT you would like to come out. I've got some ideas but wouldlike to know a bit more about the various areas/issues you would likeusto address.


----- Original Message -----From: Edward Mark <[email protected]>To: Tobin, VictoriaCc: arthur O'Connor <[email protected]>; Fred Libove<[email protected]>; Jim Davis <[email protected]>;Rubstello, PattySent: Wed Feb 24 17:49:47 2010Subject: Re: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOT

Victoria,

Great to talk to you are regarding the opportunity for NYSDOT tosponsor

a focused peer review of the lessons learned from the UPA multi-modalprogram and integrated transportation projects in the Seattle areawhichwould be hosted in NYC based on a hopefully successful proposal toFHWA.

NYSDOT is in the process of applying to FHWA for a Deployment ActivityFund grant to support a workshop in NYC based on lessons learned todatefrom the integrated deployment of UPA projects (I-90 / Sr 520),variablepricing / HOV, transit enhancements / TDM and the deployment ofActive Traffic Management along I-5. The lessons learned from theDesign Build process being used to design and deploy the activetrafficmanagement infrastructure would also be of great interest to NYSDOTandits partner agencies.

Based on FHWA approving its Deployment Activity Fund proposal (to besubmitted this week to FHWA) NYSDOT, in partnership with its agencypartners and the MPO would fully support a 1.0 - 1.5 day workshop inNYCincluding three nights in NYC, per diem expenses and travel to / fromSeattle for four panelists representing WDOT.

NYSDOT would also incorporate into the workshop tours andpresentationsrelating the NYC Joint Transportation Management Center (JTMC), NYCEmergency Management Center, multi-agency, ITS / incident managementand existing / planned HOV / BRT / TDM programs.

NYSDOT in working with its partners is looking to develop managedtransportation corridors integrated with the ITS and transitoperationsin NYC and the adjoining suburban areas. The lessons learned WDOTbasedin the Seattle experience should provide an opportunity to demonstratethat integrated innovative solutions can be designed / deployedthroughan fast tracked program to enhance mobility and improve safety.


From: Caldwell, Jeff [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: FW: Federal consideration of tolling I-90Date: 4/7/2010 7:12:57 AMAttachments: image001.gif; image002.gif; image003.gif

See Ellen’s questions below. Would you like to contact her directly?

From: Arnis, AmySent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 6:31 AMTo: Caldwell, JeffCc: Vaughn, DougSubject: Fw: Federal consideration of tolling I-90

Please consult Craig.

From : Evans, EllenTo : Caldwell, Jeff; Arnis, AmyCc : Braseth, SveinSent : Wed Apr 07 06:20:59 2010Subject : Federal consideration of tolling I-90Amy and Jeff,Today’s Bond Buyer notes that the FHWA just turned down PA’s proposal to toll I-80 because of theirrequirement that toll revenues be dedicated to the facility being tolled. PA thought they were going tobalance their budget with the $$. I have questions and no doubt will be asked questions as to how wethink WA might be able to toll I-90. Can you explain the thinking on I-90, or direct me to something thatlays it out?Thank you!Ellen

Pennsylvania Governor Seeks Special Budget Session as FHWA

Rejects TollWednesday, April 7, 2010

By

Michelle

Kaske

\fldrslt\cf1\ul \fldrslt\cf1\ul \fldrslt\cf1\ul Rendell Serves Up $29B Budget - February 10,

2010

· Pennsylvania’s Rendell Signs Table-Games Bill; State Gets Balanced Budget - January 8, 2010· Pennsylvania Governor Hopes for Table-Games Bill by End of Week - January 6, 2010

Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell yesterday called for a special legislative session to find $472.5

million for fiscal 2011 transportation needs as the Federal Highway Administration denied, for the

second time, the state’s request to implement tolls on Interstate 80.

The decision leaves a $472.5 million hole in Rendell’s proposed fiscal 2011 budget, since his

administration incorporated potential I-80 toll revenue and the bond proceeds that revenue stream

would produce in the spending plan. House members approved Rendell’s budget proposal last

month. The Senate has yet to act on that measure or release its own budget bill. Fiscal 2011 begins

July 1.

The governor said he is open to all options for additional revenue, including revisiting his earlier

proposal of a gross-profits tax on oil companies along with public-private partnerships, fee or tax

increases, and potential borrowing options through the state’s own capital budget. The special

session would happen “very soon,” Rendell said.

“We simply cannot wait to replace these funds,” the governor said during a press conference.

“We’ll look at every option on the table. We’ll go back, hopefully, to look at the oil company gross-

profits tax, something that I think the citizens of Pennsylvania will heartily approve. We’ll look at

P3s, public-private partnerships, maybe looking at a possible lease or a partial lease of the

Pennsylvania Turnpike itself. We’ll look at any fee or taxing options and I’m not committed to

either of those. And we’ll look at using the state’s capital budget authority to see how much of

that we can use to meet the needs of our roads, bridges and highways.”

Rendell said not replacing the $472.5 million of revenue represents a loss of 12,000 construction

and manufacturing jobs, 300 miles of roadway that will be left in need of repairs, 100 unfunded

bridge upgrades, and cuts in mass transit operations and capital plans throughout the state. Since

the state was expecting to leverage the anticipated revenues, Rendell said spending cuts are not

an option in his opinion.

“You can’t cut spending to produce capital dollars,” the governor said. “You have to have some

revenue stream to bond off of to produce capital dollars and most of this is capital dollars.”

In a prepared statement, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the FHWA denied

Pennsylvania’s application because it did not meet the federal requirement that toll revenues be

used exclusively for the facility being tolled.

“I care about the transportation needs of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and since I became

secretary of transportation, I’ve traveled there 10 times,” LaHood said in a press release. “In

addition, we have provided $1.4 billion in Recovery Act funds to Pennsylvania over the last year to

jump start the economy and put people back to work. We based today’s decision on what is

allowable under federal law.”

Overall, not tolling the 311-mile I-80 will result in $60 billion less in revenue for the state over 50

years.

The PTC in late October re-filed its I-80 tolling application to the FHWA after the administration

rejected the commission’s initial request in September 2008. At that time, the FHWA said the

commission’s use of the toll revenue did not meet legal requirements and lacked objective market

valuation.

Under Act 44, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission makes annual payments to the Pennsylvania

Department of Transportation, with those payments financed in part through bond sales backed by

toll increases on the 530-mile Pennsylvania Turnpike. To date, the commission has made $2.2

billion of payments to PennDOT since the passage of Act 44 in July 2007, according to commission

spokesman Bill Capone.

In addition to the increased Turnpike tolls, the plan was to begin tolling I-80 with PennDOT leasing

that 311-mile roadway to the commission. In return, it would make yearly lease payments to

PennDOT. Without the toll revenue from I-80, the commission’s total fiscal 2011 payment to

PennDOT will be $450 million, $472.5 million less than the anticipated $922.5 million payment,

Capone said.

The Turnpike runs east-west through southern Pennsylvania. I-80 is parallel to the Turnpike and

extends through the middle of the state.

More articles in Regional News

Related Articles

· Ratings for U.S. States

· Proctor Junked by Moody’s

· N.Y. City, State Skim 'Profits’ From Battery Park City Authority

· O’Hare Expansion Gets a Tailwind

· Taxes See a Mild MilestoneAdvertisement

· Most Popular

· Viewed

· Emailed

Ellen Evans

Deputy Treasurer - Debt Management

Office of the State Treasurer

State of Washington

360-902-9007

*** eSafe2 scanned this email for malicious content ***

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

From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]: Pope, David [email protected]: I-80 InfoDate: 4/7/2010 2:51:07 PMAttachments: Press Release Federal Highway Administration Declines Pennsylvania Request to Toll I-80,4-6-2010.mht; PA I-80 tolling 4-2010.docx; Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf

Craig, Here is what David has been able to gather on the topic of I-80:

· Attached is FHWA ’s news release on the topic. As mentioned Pennsylvania submittedtheir request to toll I-80 under the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation PilotProgram, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for toll revenue to bespent on expenses outside of the corridor as well as Interstate maintenance funds may not be usedon another facility for which tolls are being collected under this program.

· Pennsylvania was required by state law HB44 to provide approximately $950m/year ofrevenue for other state transportation projects if tolling I-80 was approved, including major transitsubsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

· The would seem like the more appropriate program to have applied under would have beenthe Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined as a part of the‘project ’. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls to deal withcongestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program.

· Unsubstantiated rumors indicate that Pennsylvania ’s third application continued to beflawed as were the first two. There have been concerns about the financial plans from thebeginning from FHWA and Pennsylvania appeared to have not addressed them.

· I ’ve attached our response from FHWA on our expression of interest of tolling I-90. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for the concepts we provided. Thiswould allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for transit if defined as apart of the ‘project ’.

Attached is a document that David developed that pulls information from an article that Peter Samuelwrote on this topic. In yellow are the statements that David feels are unsubstantiated facts. Let me know if you need anything else.

From: Pope, DavidSent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 2:13 PMTo: Rubstello, PattySubject: FHWA press release about I-80

R. David Pope(206) 464-1285(206) 450-9938 cell

From: Pope, David [email protected]: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]:Subject: RE: I-80 InfoDate: 4/7/2010 3:06:13 PMAttachments:

One minor correction to the second bullet. I think the Pennsylvanialegislature bill was HB1590 from the session of 2007. I guess in PA after abill becomes law its referred to as anAct, thus A (Act) 44. R.David Pope(206) 464-1285(206) 450-9938 cell

From: Rubstello, PattySent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 2:51 PMTo: Stone, CraigCc: Pope, DavidSubject: I-80 Info Craig, Here is what David has been able to gather on the topic of I-80:

· Attached is FHWA’s news release on the topic. Asmentioned Pennsylvania submitted theirrequest to toll I-80 under theInterstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program,under TEA21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for toll revenue to bespent onexpenses outside of the corridor as well as Interstate maintenancefunds may not be used onanother facility for which tolls are being collectedunder this program.

· Pennsylvania was required by state law HB44 to provideapproximately $950m/year of revenuefor other state transportation projects iftolling I-80 was approved, including major transit subsidiesin Philadelphia andPittsburgh.

· The would seem like the more appropriate program to have appliedunder would have been theValue Pricing Program where revenue could be used fortransit if defined as a part of the ‘project’. However it isunknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls to deal withcongestion,which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program.

· Unsubstantiated rumors indicate that Pennsylvania’s thirdapplication continued to be flawed aswere the first two. There have beenconcerns about the financial plans from the beginning fromFHWA andPennsylvania appeared to have not addressed them.

· I’ve attached our response from FHWA on our expression ofinterest of tolling I-90. FHWA feelsthe Value Pricing Program is the rightavenue for the concepts we provided. This would allow thetolling of anexisting interstate and the use of funding for transit if defined as a part ofthe ‘project’.

Attached is a document that David developed that pulls informationfrom an article that Peter Samuelwrote on this topic. In yellow are thestatements that David feels are unsubstantiated facts.

Let me know if you need anything else.

From: Pope, DavidSent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 2:13 PMTo: Rubstello, PattySubject: FHWA press release about I-80

R.David Pope(206) 464-1285(206) 450-9938 cell

From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: Re: I-80 InfoDate: 4/7/2010 5:01:25 PMAttachments:

Nice!Sent from my BlackBerry.

From : Stone, CraigTo : Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave; Reinmuth, Steve; Arnis, Amy; Ford, Bill; Brown, Lloyd; Trepanier, Ted;Smith, Brian; Lenzi, Jerry CCc : Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Meredith, Julie; Eng, Lorena; Pope, David; Ziegler, Jennifer;Broussard, Lucinda; Matkin, Janet; Ehl, Larry; Auyoung, DillonSent : Wed Apr 07 16:45:15 2010Subject : I-80 Info

There has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania ’s

request to toll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been

asked if this is indicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90

across Lake Washington.

I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There

are some important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under

compared to the value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply.

However, common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program.

It is uncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if

they will be significantly modified.

What we know:

1. USDOT officials have told state Governor Ed Rendell that Pennsylvania cannot toll I-80 because

state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law. This is the third

FHWA rejection, two under the previous administration. The FHWA press release is attached.

2. The Governor is calling a special session of the legislature and says he will be talking to

legislative leaders of both parties in an effort to find substitute funds.

3. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate System Reconstruction and

Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for toll

revenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor.

4. Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program that include Virginia

’s application to toll I-81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri ’s application to toll I-70 (approved

July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot.

5. Under the terms of this section, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on another facility

for which tolls are being collected under this program

6. Much of the money generated would go for projects outside the corridor including subsidies to

loss-making transit operations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh

7. The Turnpike Commission was following the letter of state law A44 which requires around

$950m/year of revenues for other state transportation projects if tolling I-80 goes ahead, including

major transit subsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

What is speculated by the ‘Toll Road News ’ website:

1. Marcus Lemon, chief counsel at FHWA during the previous two I-80 tolling applications under

President Bush, now at the Washington DC law firm Baker & Miller told us today that the third

application of the Turnpike had no more credibility than previous applications. In fact he said the

use of an apparently bogus financial adviser by the Turnpike made the third application if anything

worse than earlier applications.

2. Rendell who has had lengthy discussions with federal officials said he is certain that tolling of

interstates will be a major feature of reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU: "I have a prediction for you.

When there is a reauthorization they (the Feds) will lift the ban on tolling. There is no appetite for

raising the gasoline tax. "

3. Rendell said one of his arguments with federal officials for allowing I-80 tolling was that they

were going to lift the restrictions anyway.

What does WSDOT know about potential FHWA tolling programs:

1. Attached is the January 2009 letter from FHWA outlining the programs WSDOT could pursue

for I-90 tolling. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for the tolling concepts

we provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for transit

if defined as part of the project.

2. There would seem like the more appropriate program for Pennsylvania to have applied underwould have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined asa part of the ‘project ’. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls todeal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. Therewas an allowance for 15 states to come under the pilot Value Pricing Program, which Washingtonis one. We are not sure if Pennsylvania was one of those states.

Craig J Stone, PE

Director, Washington State Toll Division206.464.1222

From: Ford, Bill [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: Re: I-80 InfoDate: 4/7/2010 5:17:17 PMAttachments:

Wow!ThanksBill












What we know:




































2. There would seem like the more appropriate program for Pennsylvania to have applied underwould have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined asa part of the ‘project ’. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls todeal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. There

was an allowance for 15 states to come under the pilot Value Pricing Program, which Washingtonis one. We are not sure if Pennsylvania was one of those states.

Craig J Stone, PE


From: Arnis, Amy [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]: Caldwell, Jeff [email protected]; Vaughn, Doug [email protected]: Fw: I-80 InfoDate: 4/7/2010 5:28:44 PMAttachments: Press Release Federal Highway Administration Declines Pennsylvania Request to Toll I-80,4-6-2010.mht; Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf

Jeff and I received email/questions from the Treasurer's Office early today. Jeff may have been in contact withyou today. Can this email be forwarded to the OST?












What we know:




































2. There would seem like the more appropriate program for Pennsylvania to have applied underwould have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined asa part of the ‘project ’. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls todeal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. There

was an allowance for 15 states to come under the pilot Value Pricing Program, which Washingtonis one. We are not sure if Pennsylvania was one of those states.

Craig J Stone, PE


From: Reinmuth, Steve [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: Re: I-80 InfoDate: 4/7/2010 6:58:50 PMAttachments:

Thanks












What we know:









Craig J Stone, PE


From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Hammond; Paula; Dye; Dave; Reinmuth; Steve; Arnis; Amy; Ford; Bill; Brown; Lloyd; Trepanier; Ted;Smith; Brian; Lenzi; Jerry CCc: Rubstello; Patty; Smith; Helena Kennedy; Meredith; Julie; Eng; Lorena; Pope; David; Ziegler; Jennifer;Broussard; Lucinda; Matkin; Janet; Ehl; Larry; Auyoung; DillonSubject: I-80 InfoDate: 4/7/2010 11:45:15 PMAttachments: Press Release Federal Highway Administration Declines Pennsylvania Request to Toll I-80,4-6-2010.mht; Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf











What we know:





































Craig J Stone, PE


From: Hammond, Paula [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: Re: I-80 InfoDate: 4/8/2010 8:14:53 AMAttachments:

Thanks Craig. What does the value pricing program allow for the spending I-90 toll revenue on the 520 corridor?Sent from my Blackberry.












What we know:









Craig J Stone, PE


From: Ehl, Larry [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Jennifer Ziegler [email protected]:Subject: RE: I-80 InfoDate: 4/8/2010 10:17:58 AMAttachments:

Ok to share with congressional staff?

From: Stone, CraigSent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 4:45 PMTo: Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave; Reinmuth, Steve; Arnis, Amy; Ford, Bill; Brown, Lloyd; Trepanier, Ted;Smith, Brian; Lenzi, Jerry CCc: Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Meredith, Julie; Eng, Lorena; Pope, David; Ziegler, Jennifer;Broussard, Lucinda; Matkin, Janet; Ehl, Larry; Auyoung, DillonSubject: I-80 Info There has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania ’s request totoll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been asked if this isindicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across Lake Washington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There aresome important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared tothe value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However,common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It isuncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will besignificantly modified. What we know:


state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law. This is the thirdFHWA rejection, two under the previous administration. The FHWA press release is attached.

2. The Governor is calling a special session of the legislature and says he will be talking tolegislative leaders of both parties in an effort to find substitute funds.

3. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate System Reconstructionand Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow fortoll revenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor.

4. Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program that includeVirginia ’s application to toll I-81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri ’s application to toll I-70(approved July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot.

5. Under the terms of this section, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on anotherfacility for which tolls are being collected under this program

6. Much of the money generated would go for projects outside the corridor including subsidies

to loss-making transit operations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh


$950m/year of revenues for other state transportation projects if tolling I-80 goes ahead,

including major transit subsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.





use of an apparently bogus financial adviser by the Turnpike made the third application if

anything worse than earlier applications.










we provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for

transit if defined as part of the project.


Craig J Stone, PE


From: Hammond, Paula [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: Re: I-80 InfoDate: 4/8/2010 5:56:20 PMAttachments:

Thanks. We'll talk more next week.Sent from my Blackberry.

From : Stone, CraigTo : Hammond, PaulaCc : Dye, Dave; Ziegler, JenniferSent : Thu Apr 08 14:54:00 2010Subject : RE: I-80 Info

In FHWA’s reply to our Expression of Interest to consider tolling on I-90 during the Toll ImplementationCommittee’s work, they have stated that the Value Pricing Program would best suit our interests as itallows excess toll revenues from I-90 to be used for other Title 23 eligible projects (i.e. SR 520). An interesting aspect is the term “excess” for dollars above and beyond debt service, and operations andmaintenance activities. We would need further discussion with FHWA if there were no improvementsmade to I-90 that was funded by the tolling, in order to create the excess situation. However, based ontheir letter, they also state that improvements are not needed on a facility to implement variable tollingunder the Value Pricing Program. Related to this topic of I-90 tolling, one of the questions we want to discuss at next Wednesday’s TollExec Committee is the department’s strategy for HOT lanes under R8A, and whether we should beconsidering PE budget and/or agency request of toll authorization for next session to allow design andenvironmental work to begin that links to ST’s Stage 3 R8A construction schedule. Craig

From: Hammond, PaulaSent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 8:15 AMTo: Stone, CraigSubject: Re: I-80 Info


From : Stone, CraigTo : Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave; Reinmuth, Steve; Arnis, Amy; Ford, Bill; Brown, Lloyd; Trepanier, Ted;Smith, Brian; Lenzi, Jerry CCc : Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Meredith, Julie; Eng, Lorena; Pope, David; Ziegler, Jennifer;Broussard, Lucinda; Matkin, Janet; Ehl, Larry; Auyoung, Dillon

Sent : Wed Apr 07 16:45:15 2010Subject : I-80 InfoThere has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania’s request totoll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been asked if this isindicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across Lake Washington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There aresome important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared tothe value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However,common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It isuncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will besignificantly modified. What we know:





4. Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program that includeVirginia’s application to toll I-81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri’s application to toll I-70(approved July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot.







What is speculated by the ‘Toll Road News’ website:

















2. There would seem like the more appropriate program for Pennsylvania to have applied underwould have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transit if defined asa part of the ‘project’. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to vary their tolls todeal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the Value Pricing Program. Therewas an allowance for 15 states to come under the pilot Value Pricing Program, which Washingtonis one. We are not sure if Pennsylvania was one of those states.

Craig J Stone, PE


From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Hammond; PaulaCc: Dye; Dave; Ziegler; JenniferSubject: RE: I-80 InfoDate: 4/8/2010 9:54:00 PMAttachments:




From : Stone, CraigTo : Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave; Reinmuth, Steve; Arnis, Amy; Ford, Bill; Brown, Lloyd; Trepanier, Ted;Smith, Brian; Lenzi, Jerry CCc : Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Meredith, Julie; Eng, Lorena; Pope, David; Ziegler, Jennifer;Broussard, Lucinda; Matkin, Janet; Ehl, Larry; Auyoung, DillonSent : Wed Apr 07 16:45:15 2010Subject : I-80 InfoThere has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania’s request totoll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been asked if this isindicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across Lake Washington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There are

some important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared tothe value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However,common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It isuncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will besignificantly modified. What we know:






























Craig J Stone, PE


From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Ehl; Larry; Ziegler; JenniferCc:Subject: RE: I-80 InfoDate: 4/8/2010 9:55:21 PMAttachments:

I ’m good with sharing. If you want to forward to congressional staff, and Jennifer would forward to legstaff that would be fine.

From: Ehl, LarrySent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 10:18 AMTo: Stone, Craig; Ziegler, JenniferSubject: RE: I-80 Info Ok to share with congressional staff?































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: Fellows; Rob; Rubstello; PattyCc: Larsen; ChadSubject: FW: I-80 InfoDate: 4/9/2010 4:21:15 AMAttachments:

We should find a time to discuss what we know, and options to proceed with I-90 heading into Wednesday's tollexec mtg. I am thinking of using the pastel chart, a one-page summary or both.

Chad - can you recommend a best time to meet.

Craig

From: Hammond, PaulaSent: Thu 4/8/2010 5:56 PMTo: Stone, CraigSubject: Re: I-80 Info


From: Stone, CraigTo: Hammond, PaulaCc: Dye, Dave; Ziegler, JenniferSent: Thu Apr 08 14:54:00 2010Subject: RE: I-80 Info




From: Stone, CraigTo: Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave; Reinmuth, Steve; Arnis, Amy; Ford, Bill; Brown, Lloyd; Trepanier, Ted; Smith,Brian; Lenzi, Jerry CCc: Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Meredith, Julie; Eng, Lorena; Pope, David; Ziegler, Jennifer;Broussard, Lucinda; Matkin, Janet; Ehl, Larry; Auyoung, DillonSent: Wed Apr 07 16:45:15 2010Subject: I-80 Info

There has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania’s request totoll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been asked if this isindicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across LakeWashington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There aresome important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared tothe value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However,common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It isuncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will besignificantly modified. What we know:



2. The Governor is calling a special session of the legislature and says he will be talking to legislativeleaders of both parties in an effort to find substitute funds.

3. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate System Reconstruction andRehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for tollrevenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor.

















raising the gasoline tax."




1. Attached is the January 2009 letter from FHWA outlining the programs WSDOT could pursue for

I-90 tolling. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for the tolling concepts we

provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for transit if

defined as part of the project.


Craig J Stone, PE


From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]: Larsen, Chad [email protected]: Re: I-80 InfoDate: 4/9/2010 6:23:23 AMAttachments:

We could hang around after the SOM mtg today.Sent from my BlackBerry.

From: Stone, CraigTo: Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, PattyCc: Larsen, ChadSent: Thu Apr 08 21:21:15 2010Subject: FW: I-80 InfoWe should find a time to discuss what we know, and options to proceed with I-90 heading into Wednesday's tollexec mtg. I am thinking of using the pastel chart, a one-page summary or both.

Chad - can you recommend a best time to meet.

Craig

From: Hammond, PaulaSent: Thu 4/8/2010 5:56 PMTo: Stone, CraigSubject: Re: I-80 Info


From: Stone, CraigTo: Hammond, PaulaCc: Dye, Dave; Ziegler, JenniferSent: Thu Apr 08 14:54:00 2010Subject: RE: I-80 Info

In FHWA’s reply to our Expression of Interest to consider tolling on I-90 during the Toll ImplementationCommittee’s work, they have stated that the Value Pricing Program would best suit our interests as itallows excess toll revenues from I-90 to be used for other Title 23 eligible projects (i.e. SR 520). An interesting aspect is the term “excess” for dollars above and beyond debt service, and operations andmaintenance activities. We would need further discussion with FHWA if there were no improvementsmade to I-90 that was funded by the tolling, in order to create the excess situation. However, based ontheir letter, they also state that improvements are not needed on a facility to implement variable tollingunder the Value Pricing Program.

Related to this topic of I-90 tolling, one of the questions we want to discuss at next Wednesday’s TollExec Committee is the department’s strategy for HOT lanes under R8A, and whether we should beconsidering PE budget and/or agency request of toll authorization for next session to allow design andenvironmental work to begin that links to ST’s Stage 3 R8A construction schedule. Craig



From: Stone, CraigTo: Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave; Reinmuth, Steve; Arnis, Amy; Ford, Bill; Brown, Lloyd; Trepanier, Ted; Smith,Brian; Lenzi, Jerry CCc: Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Meredith, Julie; Eng, Lorena; Pope, David; Ziegler, Jennifer;Broussard, Lucinda; Matkin, Janet; Ehl, Larry; Auyoung, DillonSent: Wed Apr 07 16:45:15 2010Subject: I-80 Info

There has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania’s request totoll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been asked if this isindicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across LakeWashington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There aresome important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared tothe value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However,common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It isuncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will besignificantly modified. What we know:



2. The Governor is calling a special session of the legislature and says he will be talking to legislativeleaders of both parties in an effort to find substitute funds.

3. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate System Reconstruction andRehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). This program does not allow for tollrevenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor.

4. Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program that includeVirginia’s application to toll I-81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri’s application to toll I-70

(approved July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot.
















raising the gasoline tax."




1. Attached is the January 2009 letter from FHWA outlining the programs WSDOT could pursue for

I-90 tolling. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for the tolling concepts we

provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and the use of funding for transit if

defined as part of the project.


Craig J Stone, PE


From: Ziegler, Jennifer [email protected]: Redfield, Beth [email protected]; Simpson, Kelly [email protected]; Munnecke,David [email protected]; Parker, Christie [email protected]; Gamble, [email protected]; Fleckenstein, Mary [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]: FW: I-80 InfoDate: 4/12/2010 10:31:16 AMAttachments: Press Release Federal Highway Administration Declines Pennsylvania Request to Toll I-80,4-6-2010.mht; Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf

I just returned from vacation, so I apologize for the delay in sending this information. Below is someadditional detail on the I-80 decision. Please let me know if you have other questions. Thanks. Jennifer.































Craig J Stone, PE


From: Clibborn, Rep. Judy [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: RE: Pennsylvania tolling of I-80 for other projects rejectedDate: 4/12/2010 2:24:07 PMAttachments:

Thanks Craig, I had read about this just before we went tothe meeting so I knew a little about it. I aminterested to see whatcomes of it. I agree we are in a different place but it does give me somepoliticalcover for now.Judy

From: Stone, Craig[mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 12:04 PM

To: Clibborn, Rep. Judy; [email protected].

Subject: RE: Pennsylvania tolling of I-80 for other projects rejected

Representative Clibborn, I want to take the opportunity to follow up from lastMonday’s discussion with the Mercer Island Councilregarding the nextday’s USDOT decision to deny Pennsylvania’s request to toll I-80and how it mightrelate to considerations by Washington State to tollI-90. Interesting timing indeed. Today we found the actual letter from Secretary LaHood to GovRendell that denies the request. It can be

found http://www.paturnpike.com/i80/tolling/tolling.aspx It’s a PDF on the right side under “FHWAResponse toTolling Application Resubmission 4/6/10”

I also have enclosed an e-mail that provides an overview of whatwe know about the Pennsylvaniarequest, and what we know about Washington’s options. Key points are that Pennsylvania applied under a pilot programcalled the Interstate SystemReconstruction and Rehabilitation PilotProgram. During the SR 520 Tolling Implementation Committee’sworkwe sent FHWA an Expression of Interest letter regarding the feasibility oftolling I-90. In their replythey recommended considering using adifferent pilot called the Value Pricing Program. Since bothprograms arepilots under TEA-21, it is unclear if they will continue with a federalreauthorizationprogram. I hope this information is helpful. Craig Craig J Stone, PE


From: Clibborn, Rep. Judy[mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 10:49 AM

To: 'Rich Conrad'; Stone, Craig; '[email protected].'

Subject: FW: Pennsylvania tolling of I-80 for other projects rejected

This was what I had read about in a magazine a couple of weeksago. I guess it really happened. We will have to workcarefully tonot have the same result. I think we need to find all the revenue we canfor 520 in as many ways as we can. Itmay be that we delay certain partsand fund them later ( lid on I-5?) _____________________________________________From: Redfield, BethSent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 9:00 AMTo: Clibborn, Rep. JudySubject: Pennsylvania tolling of I-80 for other projects rejected Haveyou seen this? Not sure exactly what it means for tolling I-90 to pay for520, since PA really went whole hog spendingthe money on mass transit andprojects all around the state. WSDOT could argue that 520 and 90 are thesame corridorand maybe get a different answer. http://kdka.com/wireapnewsfnpa/In.blow.to.2.1614748.html

From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Hammond; Paula; Dye; Dave; Reinmuth; Steve; Arnis; Amy; Ford; Bill; Brown; Lloyd; Trepanier; Ted;Smith; Brian; Lenzi; Jerry CCc: Rubstello; Patty; Smith; Helena Kennedy; Meredith; Julie; Eng; Lorena; Pope; David; Ziegler; Jennifer;Broussard; Lucinda; Matkin; Janet; Ehl; Larry; Auyoung; DillonSubject: I-80 InfoDate: 4/12/2010 7:04:15 PMAttachments: Press Release Federal Highway Administration Declines Pennsylvania Request to Toll I-80,4-6-2010.mht; Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf

Representative Clibborn, I want to take the opportunity to follow up from last Monday’sdiscussion with the Mercer Island Councilregarding the next day’s USDOTdecision to deny Pennsylvania’s request to toll I-80 and how itmightrelate to considerations by Washington State to toll I-90. Interestingtiming indeed. Today we found the actual letter from Secretary LaHood to Gov Rendellthat denies the request. It can befound http://www.paturnpike.com/i80/tolling/tolling.aspx It’s a PDF on the right side under “FHWA ResponsetoTolling Application Resubmission 4/6/10”

I also have enclosed an e-mail that provides an overview of whatwe know about the Pennsylvaniarequest, and what we know about Washington’soptions. Key points are that Pennsylvania applied under a pilot programcalled the Interstate SystemReconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program. During the SR 520 Tolling Implementation Committee’swork we sent FHWA anExpression of Interest letter regarding the feasibility of tolling I-90. In their replythey recommended considering using a different pilot called theValue Pricing Program. Since bothprograms are pilots under TEA-21, it isunclear if they will continue with a federal reauthorizationprogram. I hope this information is helpful. Craig Craig J Stone, PE






This was what I had read about in a magazine a couple of weeksago. I guess it really happened. We will have to workcarefully tonot have the same result. I think we need to find all the revenue we canfor 520 in as many ways as we can. Itmay be that we delay certain partsand fund them later ( lid on I-5?) _____________________________________________

From: Redfield, BethSent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 9:00 AMTo: Clibborn, Rep. JudySubject: Pennsylvania tolling of I-80 for other projects rejected Haveyou seen this? Not sure exactly what it means for tolling I-90 to pay for520, since PA really went whole hog spendingthe money on mass transit andprojects all around the state. WSDOT could argue that 520 and 90 are thesame corridorand maybe get a different answer. http://kdka.com/wireapnewsfnpa/In.blow.to.2.1614748.html

From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: I-90 PlanDate: 4/13/2010 2:52:29 PMAttachments: 20100412_Initial Plan for I-90.docx

Here is what I have so far for the on-page on I-90. Comments are welcomed.

From: Leth, Mark [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Trepanier, Ted [email protected]:Subject: FW: I-90 Deviations MeetingDate: 4/13/2010 3:38:11 PMAttachments:

My point about deviations lastFriday……

From: Sims, Don[mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 3:27 PMTo: Leth, Mark; Roberts, RickSubject: FW: I-90 Deviations Meeting Apparently Ed Barry isuncomfortable with our 11’ lane recommendation for a restripe option forI-90between Bellevue & Issaquah. Not sure he’s up to speed onoperational and safety issues out there. Iwanted to make sure you twowere on board w/ his suggestion..

From: Sims, DonSent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 3:22 PMTo: 'Hunter, Carol'Subject: RE: I-90 Deviations Meeting I’d suggest Rick Robertsand Leth as well as the guy you mentioned from HQ. The goal is to cometoconsensus on what reduced cross section we want to estimate. What is themakeup of lane widths andshoulders. Because ultimately FHWA has toapprove, you may want to bring them in the discussion. Onthe other hand,since there is no funding, that may be overkill. It will be hard to getLeth to show upunless it is up at Dayton. The potential upside is thatthey may recommend we just stick w/ the deviatedsection we came up withbecause there may not be any measurable safety or operational benefitbetweenwhat we are proposing and what Ed is asking for. For example, is therereally a benefit to 12’ GPlanes vs. 11’ GP lanes (all other things(shoulders) being equal) on an urban tangent section such as this. Somecould argue that 11’ lanes may actually lower the 85thpercentile speeds out there – which a fewyears ago were up around 70mphfor a posted 60mph zone. Let me know if you have anyquestions or want to discuss further.

From: Hunter, Carol[mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 3:03 PMTo: Sims, Don; Sims, Don (Consultant)Subject: I-90 Deviations Meeting

Don, Otherthen Ed Barry, who would you suggest attend our I-90 Deviations meeting?

CarolHunterWSDOT,Urban Planning Office4012nd Ave South #300Seattle,WA 98104206464-1219

From: Ehl, Larry [email protected]: Travis Lumpkin [email protected]; Michael [email protected]; Livia Shmavonian [email protected]; Nelson, [email protected]; Celina Cunningham [email protected]; Sheila [email protected]; Tom Young [email protected]: Lovain, Tim [email protected]; [email protected]; Dillon [email protected]; Craig Stone [email protected]; Jennifer Ziegler [email protected];Willy Leiste [email protected]; Lloyd Brown [email protected]: USDOT tolling decision / possible impact to SR 520 / Publicola articleDate: 4/14/2010 7:11:45 AMAttachments:

Yesterday, Publicola ran an article with the provocative title “ Federal Ruling Could Erase $1

Billion in Funding for 520 ” (full article at bottom).

The author speculates on the possible impact of a USDOT decision last week decliningPennsylvania ’s request to toll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state.

Here is some initial information we prepared last week. If we have a response to the article, andfurther analysis, I ’ll share that when it ’s available.

Let me know if you have questions.

Larry

Questions have been asked if this is indicative of what may occur if Washington State pursuedpermission to toll I-90 across Lake Washington.

I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There are some important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applyingunder compared to the value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State wasto apply. However, common to both applications they come under the current surfacetransportation program. It is uncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program willcontinue these programs of if they will be significantly modified.

What we know:

1. USDOT officials have told state Governor Ed Rendell that Pennsylvania cannot toll I-80because state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law.This is the third FHWA rejection, two under the previous administration. The FHWA pressrelease is attached.



3. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission applied under the Interstate SystemReconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, under TEA 21, Section 1216(b). Thisprogram does not allow for toll revenue to be spent on expenses outside of the corridor.

4. Two of the three available slots have been reserved under this pilot program thatinclude Virginia ’s application to toll I-81 (approved March 2003) and Missouri ’sapplication to toll I-70 (approved July 2005). Pennsylvania was seeking the last slot.

5. Under the terms of this section, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used onanother facility for which tolls are being collected under this program

6. Much of the money generated would go for projects outside the corridor includingsubsidies to loss-making transit operations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh

7. The Turnpike Commission was following the letter of state law A44 which requiresaround $950m/year of revenues for other state transportation projects if tolling I-80 goesahead, including major transit subsidies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.


1. Marcus Lemon, chief counsel at FHWA during the previous two I-80 tolling applicationsunder President Bush, now at the Washington DC law firm Baker & Miller told us todaythat the third application of the Turnpike had no more credibility than previousapplications. In fact he said the use of an apparently bogus financial adviser by theTurnpike made the third application if anything worse than earlier applications.

2. Rendell who has had lengthy discussions with federal officials said he is certain thattolling of interstates will be a major feature of reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU: "I have aprediction for you. When there is a reauthorization they (the Feds) will lift the ban ontolling. There is no appetite for raising the gasoline tax. "

3. Rendell said one of his arguments with federal officials for allowing I-80 tolling was thatthey were going to lift the restrictions anyway.


1. Attached is the January 2009 letter from FHWA outlining the programs WSDOT couldpursue for I-90 tolling. FHWA feels the Value Pricing Program is the right avenue for thetolling concepts we provided. This would allow the tolling of an existing interstate and theuse of funding for transit if defined as part of the project.

2. There would seem like the more appropriate program for Pennsylvania to have appliedunder would have been the Value Pricing Program where revenue could be used for transitif defined as a part of the ‘project ’. However it is unknown if Pennsylvania was looking to

vary their tolls to deal with congestion, which would have been a requirement of the ValuePricing Program. There was an allowance for 15 states to come under the pilot ValuePricing Program, which Washington is one. We are not sure if Pennsylvania was one ofthose states.

Federal Ruling Could Erase $1 Billion in Funding for 520

Posted by Erica C. Barnett on April 13, 2010 at 4:30 PM6 Comments and 0 ReactionsShare retweet

A ruling last week by US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood could put funding for the proposed

$4.6 billion 520 bridge replacement in jeopardy, eliminating approximately $1 billion in potential

revenue from tolls on I-90 across Lake Washington.

City leaders have repeatedly expressed support for tolling the I-90 bridge across Lake Washington

(in addition to tolling the 520 bridge) in part because tolling revenues from both bridges could help

close the funding gap for a 520 bridge replacement. The state has been counting on tolling I-90 to

pay for about $1 billion of the 520 bridge replacement.

However, last week, LaHood rejected a petition by the state of Philadelphia to allow toll money

from Interstate 80, which cuts across the center of the state, to be spent to help offset a transit

funding shortfall. In his ruling, LaHood cited a little-known Bush-era federal law that prohibits the

use of tolls collected on interstate freeways to pay for anything other than improvements to the

freeway itself.

The ruling presents a huge, perhaps insurmountable, impediment to transportation leaders ’ plans

here in Washington State, where I-90 tolls were supposed to help pay for 520, in addition to

improvements to I-90 itself. The loss of that revenue would leave 520 with a funding shortfall of

about $1 billion.

“If Washington State wanted to toll I-90 it would be unable to do so right now, unless [toll money]

went right back into that road, ” Bill LaBorde, policy director at the pro-transit Transportation

Choices Coalition, said at a forum last week. “This is one place where the Obama Administration is

less progressive than the Bush Administration. ” (It ’s conceivable, LaBorde says, that toll funds

could be used to build light rail on I-90, but that remains “a bit speculative. ”)

Contacted by phone today, LaBorde called the ruling “a huge deal ” for the region. “A lot of people

are thinking the Obama Administration is out of options for financing transportation in the next six-

year [transportation] bill, ” which was supposed to have been adopted in 2009.

“Maybe they ’ll revisit that issue in crafting a new bill. ” However, LaBorde adds, the

Administration may fear that drivers will revolt (and vote against Democrats in Congress) if their

toll money is used to pay for unrelated projects.

City Council members Tom Rasmussen and Richard Conlin, who ’ve been active on the 520 issue,

have not yet returned calls for comment; we ’ve also got calls in to WSDOT deputy director David

Dye, house transportation committee chair Judy Clibborn, and the office of Sen. Patty Murray (D-

WA), who reportedly supports the federal tolling policy.

From: Ehl, Larry [email protected]: Craig Stone [email protected]; Jennifer Ziegler [email protected]; Lloyd [email protected]:Subject: FW: I-80 InfoDate: 4/14/2010 7:12:40 AMAttachments:

Thought you ’d be interested in Murray staff response -

From: Lumpkin, Travis (Murray) [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 7:02 AMTo: Ehl, LarrySubject: RE: I-80 Info Thank you. I agree that Barnes is blowing this out of proportion a bit. I don ’t see that the I-80 decisionchanges anything for us re 520 or CRC.

From: Ehl, Larry [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 9:58 AMTo: Lumpkin, Travis (Murray)Subject: FW: I-80 Info

Travis, here ’s our take. I ’ve been delinquent in getting this out to folks. I don ’t think thesituation is as serious as Barnes makes it sound.

From: Stone, CraigSent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 4:45 PMTo: Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave; Reinmuth, Steve; Arnis, Amy; Ford, Bill; Brown, Lloyd; Trepanier, Ted;Smith, Brian; Lenzi, Jerry CCc: Rubstello, Patty; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Meredith, Julie; Eng, Lorena; Pope, David; Ziegler, Jennifer;Broussard, Lucinda; Matkin, Janet; Ehl, Larry; Auyoung, DillonSubject: I-80 Info There has been quite a bit of interest today in the action of USDOT declining Pennsylvania ’s request totoll I-80 as a means to finance transportation within their state. Questions have been asked if this isindicative of what may occur if Washington State pursued permission to toll I-90 across Lake Washington. I want to provide you with the best information that we have at this time regarding this topic. There aresome important differences in the type of program that Pennsylvania was applying under compared tothe value pricing program that would be considered if Washington State was to apply. However,common to both applications they come under the current surface transportation program. It isuncertain if future reauthorization of the federal program will continue these programs of if they will besignificantly modified.

What we know: 1. USDOT officials have told state Governor Ed Rendell that Pennsylvania cannot toll I-80 because





























Craig J Stone, PE


From: Ziegler, Jennifer [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: FW: Pennsylvania tolling of I-80 for other projects rejectedDate: 4/14/2010 12:03:47 PMAttachments:

Senator Haugen may talk with KUOW today. Kelly asked for theUSDOT letter—I went ahead and sent thatto him with this e-mail because Ithought it had a few good talking points he could use. Hopefully, thatmeansHaugen’s info will be consistent with Paula’s. Let me know if youhave questions. Lloyd—I also sent some background info to Teresa andClint in case they get questions. I didn’t sendanything to Viet.

From: Simpson, Kelly[mailto:[email protected]]


To: Ziegler, Jennifer


Thanks!

From: Ziegler, Jennifer[mailto:[email protected]]


To: Simpson, Kelly


Thiswill have a few things you can use. You can pull out some talking points fromthe e-mails and then the letter we received in 2009 is attached to the attachede-mail. Let meknow if you need more.

From: Stone, Craig

Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 12:04 PM

To: 'Clibborn, Rep. Judy'; '[email protected].'


Representative Clibborn, I want to take the opportunity to follow up from lastMonday’s discussion with the Mercer Island Councilregarding the nextday’s USDOT decision to deny Pennsylvania’s request to toll I-80and how it mightrelate to considerations by Washington State to toll I-90. Interesting timing indeed. Today we found the actual letter from Secretary LaHood to GovRendell that denies the request. It can be

found http://www.paturnpike.com/i80/tolling/tolling.aspx It’s a PDF on the right side under “FHWAResponse toTolling Application Resubmission 4/6/10”

I also have enclosed an e-mail that provides an overview of whatwe know about the Pennsylvaniarequest, and what we know about Washington’s options. Key points are that Pennsylvania applied under a pilot programcalled the Interstate SystemReconstruction and Rehabilitation PilotProgram. During the SR 520 Tolling Implementation Committee’sworkwe sent FHWA an Expression of Interest letter regarding the feasibility oftolling I-90. In their replythey recommended considering using adifferent pilot called the Value Pricing Program. Since bothprograms arepilots under TEA-21, it is unclear if they will continue with a federalreauthorizationprogram. I hope this information is helpful. Craig Craig J Stone, PE






This was what I had read about in a magazine a couple of weeksago. I guess it really happened. We will have to workcarefully tonot have the same result. I think we need to find all the revenue we canfor 520 in as many ways as we can. Itmay be that we delay certain partsand fund them later ( lid on I-5?) _____________________________________________From: Redfield, BethSent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 9:00 AMTo: Clibborn, Rep. JudySubject: Pennsylvania tolling of I-80 for other projects rejected Haveyou seen this? Not sure exactly what it means for tolling I-90 to pay for520, since PA really went whole hog spendingthe money on mass transit andprojects all around the state. WSDOT could argue that 520 and 90 are thesame corridorand maybe get a different answer. http://kdka.com/wireapnewsfnpa/In.blow.to.2.1614748.html

From: Leth, Mark [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Trepanier, Ted [email protected]:Subject: RE: I-90 Deviations MeetingDate: 4/15/2010 3:38:53 PMAttachments:

I am interested in participatingin that discussion. Thanks

From: Stone, CraigSent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 3:12 PMTo: Leth, Mark; Trepanier, TedSubject: RE: I-90 Deviations Meeting Point well taken. I am indiscussion with Pasco to assign a design engineer to Rob’s Express TollSystemwork, with the ability to think about a 300 mile system and that canembrace ‘practical design’.

From: Leth, MarkSent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 3:38 PMTo: Stone, Craig; Trepanier, TedSubject: FW: I-90 Deviations Meeting My point about deviations lastFriday……


From: Sims, DonSent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 3:22 PMTo: 'Hunter, Carol'Subject: RE: I-90 Deviations Meeting I’d suggest Rick Roberts andLeth as well as the guy you mentioned from HQ. The goal is to cometoconsensus on what reduced cross section we want to estimate. What is themakeup of lane widths andshoulders. Because ultimately FHWA has toapprove, you may want to bring them in the discussion. Onthe other hand,since there is no funding, that may be overkill. It will be hard to getLeth to show upunless it is up at Dayton. The potential upside is thatthey may recommend we just stick w/ the deviatedsection we came up with becausethere may not be any measurable safety or operational benefitbetween what weare proposing and what Ed is asking for. For example, is there really abenefit to 12’ GPlanes vs. 11’ GP lanes (all other things(shoulders) being equal) on an urban tangent section such as this. Somecould argue that 11’ lanes may actually lower the 85thpercentile speeds out there – which a few

years ago were up around 70mphfor a posted 60mph zone. Let me know if you have anyquestions or want to discuss further.

From: Hunter, Carol[mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 3:03 PMTo: Sims, Don; Sims, Don (Consultant)Subject: I-90 Deviations Meeting

Don, Otherthen Ed Barry, who would you suggest attend our I-90 Deviations meeting? CarolHunterWSDOT,Urban Planning Office4012nd Ave South #300Seattle,WA 98104206464-1219

From: Larsen, Chad [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: FW: I-90 PlanDate: 4/15/2010 4:33:42 PMAttachments: 20100414_Initial Plan for I-90.docx

From: Rubstello, PattySent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 2:11 PMTo: Larsen, ChadSubject: I-90 Plan Here you go.

From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Leth; Mark; Trepanier; TedCc:Subject: RE: I-90 Deviations MeetingDate: 4/15/2010 10:11:55 PMAttachments:

Point well taken. I am indiscussion with Pasco to assign a design engineer to Rob’s Express TollSystemwork, with the ability to think about a 300 mile system and that canembrace ‘practical design’.

From: Leth, MarkSent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 3:38 PMTo: Stone, Craig; Trepanier, TedSubject: FW: I-90 Deviations Meeting My point about deviations lastFriday……


From: Sims, DonSent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 3:22 PMTo: 'Hunter, Carol'Subject: RE: I-90 Deviations Meeting I’d suggest Rick Robertsand Leth as well as the guy you mentioned from HQ. The goal is to cometoconsensus on what reduced cross section we want to estimate. What is themakeup of lane widths andshoulders. Because ultimately FHWA has toapprove, you may want to bring them in the discussion. Onthe other hand,since there is no funding, that may be overkill. It will be hard to getLeth to show upunless it is up at Dayton. The potential upside is thatthey may recommend we just stick w/ the deviatedsection we came up withbecause there may not be any measurable safety or operational benefitbetweenwhat we are proposing and what Ed is asking for. For example, is therereally a benefit to 12’ GPlanes vs. 11’ GP lanes (all other things(shoulders) being equal) on an urban tangent section such as this. Somecould argue that 11’ lanes may actually lower the 85thpercentile speeds out there – which a fewyears ago were up around 70mphfor a posted 60mph zone. Let me know if you have anyquestions or want to discuss further.

From: Hunter, Carol[mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 3:03 PM

To: Sims, Don; Sims, Don (Consultant)Subject: I-90 Deviations Meeting

Don, Otherthen Ed Barry, who would you suggest attend our I-90 Deviations meeting? CarolHunterWSDOT,Urban Planning Office4012nd Ave South #300Seattle,WA 98104206464-1219

From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIGTo: Smith; Helena Kennedy; Fellows; RobCc:Subject: FW: I-90 PlanDate: 4/15/2010 11:35:38 PMAttachments: 20100414_Initial Plan for I-90.docx

Wanted to make sure you had thishandout that begins to frame up an approach to I-90 tolling.

From: Larsen, ChadSent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:34 PMTo: Stone, CraigSubject: FW: I-90 Plan


From: Fellows, Rob [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]:Subject: RE: I-90 PlanDate: 4/16/2010 10:52:07 AMAttachments:

Thanks. We need to discuss whether thiswill be done in-house or as part of the express lanes project. I’dsuggestcoordinating either way. Bill James is on the express lanes teamand would be a good resource at least. -- Rob

From: Stone, CraigSent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:36 PMTo: Smith, Helena Kennedy; Fellows, RobSubject: FW: I-90 Plan Wanted to make sure you had thishandout that begins to frame up an approach to I-90 tolling.

From: Larsen, ChadSent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:34 PMTo: Stone, CraigSubject: FW: I-90 Plan


From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Howard, Charlie [email protected]; Posthuma, Ron [email protected]; Heffernan,Peter [email protected]; Benjamin Brackett [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]: FW: I-80 InfoDate: 4/21/2010 11:27:49 AMAttachments: Press Release Federal Highway Administration Declines Pennsylvania Request to Toll I-80,4-6-2010.mht; Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf

Here is the email I mentioned that Craig developed with regards to Pennsylvania ’s request for tolling onI-80. Also attached is the response we got from FHWA on our questions on tolling I-90. Let me know if you have questions.































Craig J Stone, PE


From: Ziegler, Jennifer [email protected]: Redfield, Beth [email protected]: Munnecke, David [email protected]; Matteson, Mark [email protected]: RE: another questionDate: 4/30/2010 9:34:04 AMAttachments: Response to WashingtonEoI Letter January 7_2009.pdf

Lastyear’s legislative workgroup had a discussion about FHWA and the I-90issue, but ourdirection to go ask was in the Tolling Implementation Committeework. I’ve attached a copyof the letter that we received in response toour questions. It has a table attached thatoutlines the different programs andyou can see pretty clearly why Pennsylvania’s did notqualify. We are closelywatching Reauthorization conversations on this topic and recognizethat our2009 letter was from a previous administration. I’m cc’ing Craig incase he wants toadd anything.

From: Redfield, Beth[mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 2:12 PM

To: Ziegler, Jennifer

Cc: Munnecke, David; Matteson, Mark

Subject: another question

HiJennifer,Judytalked quite a bit today about the USDOT decision against Pennsylvania’sproposal to toll I-80 and expressed concernabout any proposals WA will have totoll I-90. I reported largely what we had been told about how differentthe proposalsare, and therefore that WSDOT believed that tolling I-90 wouldfare better. Shewasn’t quite satisfied with that and wanted more specifics about theextent to which the Department has engaged theUSDOT on the question of tollingI-90. In particular, she thought last year’s 520 Legislative WorkGroup had directed DOTto ask FHWA about tolling I-90. Canyou give us more info about the extent of DOT’s investigation andengagement on this question? Has any USDOTofficial been on the recordsaying that WA’s proposal would be judged favorably? Idid not ask Judy whether her concern is about HOT lane tolling on I-90 orgeneral tolling on I-90. My guess is that feedback on both types wouldbe useful. Thanks.Beth

From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Edward Mark [email protected]: arthur OConnor [email protected]; Tobin, Victoria [email protected]: RE: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOTDate: 6/14/2010 8:17:07 AMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

Ed,

Yes, WSDOT is still interested in supporting your efforts on this. I look forward to working with you on it. I think the learning will be mutual!

Patty

-----Original Message-----From: Edward Mark [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 6:51 AMTo: Rubstello, PattyCc: arthur O'Connor; Tobin, VictoriaSubject: RE: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOTImportance: High

** High Priority **

Patty,

Great news.

As noted below, the FHWA NYS Division which initiated the T2 /Deployment Fund Solicitation for FFY2010 has informed my office thatWashington is about to issue a final approval for the FHWA NYS Divisionto receive $20,000 to support a peer to peer review between WSDOT andNYSDOT. This review would include two workshops ( NYC and Seattle) plusmultiple video / telephone conferences to outline best practicesgenerated by lessons learned to datefrom the integrated deployment of UPA projects in the Seattle Area(I-90 / Sr 520), variable pricing / HOV, transit enhancements / TDMand the deployment of Active Traffic Management along I-5 and otherinnovative practices in support of enhanced mobility and safety. Likewise, innovative practices to promote mobility and safety such as BRT,coordinated ITS / incident management, comprehensive 511, and Metroarea TDM Program integrated with 511 would also be outlined by a NYSDOTled multi-agency team.

As noted below, it is very important for WSDOT to again to confirm itssupport for the peer to peer review project as the NYS Divisional officeneeds to report back to Washington by tomorrow that the Project is a go.

I apologize for the short notice but I was out of the office atmeetings late last week without returning to office. I look forward toworking with you and FHWA in organizing the peer to peer review effortto be funded by FHWA.

My cell phone # is 718 938 - 3869. You can call me at any timeincluding up to 6:00 PM PST.

Ed

P.S. The ATM information you provided is greatly appreciated. Isdissemination has already had a impact on the corridor level deploymentof ATM. Thank you.

Sent: 6/8/2010 4:12:40 PMSubject: FW: T2 / Deployment Fund Solicitation for FFY2010 (Due by02/26/2010)

Ed -

As I just mentioned to you over the phone (6/08), this is a virtualgo' providing that I have a commitment on behalf of yourself (andothers in R11) along with those on behalf of Washington DOT.

The requirement is that these funds ($20K) are obligated by the end ofSeptember, 2010. If we commit and later retract that commitment, thisaction will seriously jeopardize future requests by the Division officeas a whole.


Should be exciting!

Patty


Ed,


I'm hoping to have an answer for you later next week if its a 'go' orno go'. Once you have the approval on your end, we can discuss whofrom WSDOT you would like to come out. I've got some ideas but wouldlike to know a bit more about the various areas/issues you would like

usto address.



Victoria,

Great to talk to you are regarding the opportunity for NYSDOT tosponsora focused peer review of the lessons learned from the UPA multi-modalprogram and integrated transportation projects in the Seattle areawhichwould be hosted in NYC based on a hopefully successful proposal toFHWA.

NYSDOT is in the process of applying to FHWA for a Deployment ActivityFund grant to support a workshop in NYC based on lessons learned todatefrom the integrated deployment of UPA projects (I-90 / Sr 520),variablepricing / HOV, transit enhancements / TDM and the deployment ofActive Traffic Management along I-5. The lessons learned from theDesign Build process being used to design and deploy the activetrafficmanagement infrastructure would also be of great interest to NYSDOTandits partner agencies.



NYSDOT in working with its partners is looking to develop managedtransportation corridors integrated with the ITS and transitoperationsin NYC and the adjoining suburban areas. The lessons learned WDOTbased

in the Seattle experience should provide an opportunity to demonstratethat integrated innovative solutions can be designed / deployedthroughan fast tracked program to enhance mobility and improve safety.


From: Edward Mark [email protected]: [email protected]: [email protected]; Fred Lai [email protected]; Todd Westhuis [email protected]; Uchenna Madu [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]: Re: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOTDate: 6/14/2010 8:27:17 AMAttachments:------------------------------------------------------------

Patty

Thank you for the quick response and support by WSDOT for the FHWA Perrto Peer review. Once the FHWA NYS Divisional office officially informsNYSDOT that the $20,000 has been awarded I will contact you to set up antelemeeting to discuss the implementation of the FHWA funded peer topeer review effort.

Ed

-----Original Message-----From: "Rubstello, Patty" <[email protected]>Cc: O'Connor, arthur <[email protected]>To: Mark, Edward <[email protected]>Cc: Stone, Craig <[email protected]>Cc: Tobin, Victoria <[email protected]>

Sent: 6/14/2010 11:17:07 AMSubject: RE: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOT

Ed,

Yes, WSDOT is still interested in supporting your efforts on this. Ilook forward to working with you on it. I think the learning will bemutual!

Patty

-----Original Message-----From: Edward Mark [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 6:51 AMTo: Rubstello, PattyCc: arthur O'Connor; Tobin, VictoriaSubject: RE: FHWA funded UPA Peer Review in NYC sponsored by NYSDOTImportance: High

** High Priority **

Patty,

Great news.

As noted below, the FHWA NYS Division which initiated the T2 /Deployment Fund Solicitation for FFY2010 has informed my office thatWashington is about to issue a final approval for the FHWA NYS Division

to receive $20,000 to support a peer to peer review between WSDOT andNYSDOT. This review would include two workshops ( NYC and Seattle) plusmultiple video / telephone conferences to outline best practicesgenerated by lessons learned to datefrom the integrated deployment of UPA projects in the Seattle Area(I-90 / Sr 520), variable pricing / HOV, transit enhancements / TDMand the deployment of Active Traffic Management along I-5 and otherinnovative practices in support of enhanced mobility and safety. Likewise, innovative practices to promote mobility and safety such as BRT,coordinated ITS / incident management, comprehensive 511, and Metroarea TDM Program integrated with 511 would also be outlined by a NYSDOTled multi-agency team.

As noted below, it is very important for WSDOT to again to confirm itssupport for the peer to peer review project as the NYS Divisional officeneeds to report back to Washington by tomorrow that the Project is a go.

I apologize for the short notice but I was out of the office atmeetings late last week without returning to office. I look forward toworking with you and FHWA in organizing the peer to peer review effortto be funded by FHWA.

My cell phone # is 718 938 - 3869. You can call me at any timeincluding up to 6:00 PM PST.

Ed

P.S. The ATM information you provided is greatly appreciated. Isdissemination has already had a impact on the corridor level deploymentof ATM. Thank you.

Sent: 6/8/2010 4:12:40 PMSubject: FW: T2 / Deployment Fund Solicitation for FFY2010 (Due by02/26/2010)

Ed -

As I just mentioned to you over the phone (6/08), this is a virtualgo' providing that I have a commitment on behalf of yourself (andothers in R11) along with those on behalf of Washington DOT.

The requirement is that these funds ($20K) are obligated by the end ofSeptember, 2010. If we commit and later retract that commitment, thisaction will seriously jeopardize future requests by the Division officeas a whole.


Should be exciting!

Patty


Ed,


I'm hoping to have an answer for you later next week if its a 'go' orno go'. Once you have the approval on your end, we can discuss whofrom WSDOT you would like to come out. I've got some ideas but wouldlike to know a bit more about the various areas/issues you would likeusto address.



Victoria,

Great to talk to you are regarding the opportunity for NYSDOT tosponsora focused peer review of the lessons learned from the UPA multi-modalprogram and integrated transportation projects in the Seattle areawhichwould be hosted in NYC based on a hopefully successful proposal toFHWA.

NYSDOT is in the process of applying to FHWA for a Deployment ActivityFund grant to support a workshop in NYC based on lessons learned todatefrom the integrated deployment of UPA projects (I-90 / Sr 520),variablepricing / HOV, transit enhancements / TDM and the deployment ofActive Traffic Management along I-5. The lessons learned from theDesign Build process being used to design and deploy the active

trafficmanagement infrastructure would also be of great interest to NYSDOTandits partner agencies.



NYSDOT in working with its partners is looking to develop managedtransportation corridors integrated with the ITS and transitoperationsin NYC and the adjoining suburban areas. The lessons learned WDOTbasedin the Seattle experience should provide an opportunity to demonstratethat integrated innovative solutions can be designed / deployedthroughan fast tracked program to enhance mobility and improve safety.


From: Doug Levy [email protected]: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Dye, Dave [email protected]:Subject: FW: Transportation Commission MinutesDate: 7/29/2010 7:45:56 AMAttachments: Final Aberdeen minutes 62210.docx; Final minutes 62310.docx

HI YOU TWO:

Reading over the minutes from the June commission meeting – specifically asthey relate to SR-520financing and toll rates discussion, I didn’t seeor note anything about I-90 and introducing tolling of thatfacility to helpfinance. That was one of the conclusions of the SR-520 Work Group –namely, that if otherfederal and state funding to make the 520 financingpackage work was not in order by 2014, then tollingof I-90 would commence. Is the Commission already awareof this? Doug LevyOutcomes By Levy(425)424-9110 -- Office(425)922-3999 -- Cell(425)424-3105 -- [email protected]

From: Boyd, Pamala[mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 4:53 PMTo: Adler, Bob (Port of Mattawa); Agnew, Bruce; Aldrich, Nancy; Alloin,Louis; Amalgamated Transit UnionLocal 843; Anderson, Sherilyn; Ardussi, Sean;Arroyo, John; Asher Dave (E-mail); Austin, Andrew; Barnett,Caroline, HNTB;Baxter, Gordon; Bay, Mike (TVW); Becklund Kim (E-mail); Berman, Rob(Consultant);Bernard van de Kamp (E-mail); Bethune, Mark; Betty Kristen(E-mail); Biggs, Tom; Biles, Renee (People forPeople); Bill Wright (E-mail);Bills, Shawn; Binns, Pat; Black, Thera; Blount, Russ; Bob Keller (E-mail);Boesch, Tim (Wilbur Smith Assoc.); Bogart, Wes; Bolser, Kurt; Borowski, Ron;Boss, Randy; BowmanLeo (E-mail); Branch, Steve; Briggs, Jon; Brown, Jailyn;Burns, Ian (PlanB Consulting); Cain, Donald; Carlson,Madelyn (People forPeople); Carter, Bill; Casavant, Ken; Casey, James; Childers, Bob; Chisa,Scott; City ofVancouver PIO: Mark Brown; Colman, Victor; Condon, David;Cotter, Mark; Cuoio Greg (E-mail); Cushman,Jeanne; Cziske, Dennis; Dan Burke(E-mail); Davis, Aubrey; Davis, Ron (T.C. Transportation); De Hendrix (E-mail);DeLamater David (E-mail); Devine, Lucretia; Dillard, Julie; Dilley, Scott;Dingethal, Bob ; Dingfield,Joan; Dixon, Dan; Doerschuk, John; Donald F.Fleming (E-mail); Eagan, Sean; Earl Liss; Elliott, Walter; EricBrown (E-mail);Eskenazi, Victor; Evans, Lance (Orcas Island Chamber); Ewers, Matthew; Farrel,Jessyn;Fennessy, Anne; Finn, Terry (BNSF Gov't Affairs); Fleckenstein, Mary(JTC Coordinator); Flem Lloyd (E-mail); Flint, Roger; Fox, Justin; Fralick,Richard; Fred Chang (E-mail); Friedrich, Ed (Kitsap Sun); Froehlich,Brenton;Garrity, Mark; Gene Schlatter (E-mail); Glover, Tom; Gonzales, Teresa; Goon,Karen (PierceCounty Public Works); Gossett, Eldonna; Green, Stanley; Grening,Brent; Gut, Tom; Hadley, Rich; HaleJeannie (E-mail); Halsan, Stuart A.;Hamilton, Carol; Hardy Patrice (E-mail); Harvey, Steve; HasegawaRobert(E-mail); Haslett, Roger; Hauge, Kirsten; Heather Glude (E-mail); Herton Lynn(E-mail); Hiemstra,Hal; Hockett, Leiter; Hodson, Doug ; Hoffman, Mary Jo;Hoffmeister, Emmaline; Hohl, Erik; Hook, Dana;Hoss, Holly; Houston, George;Hurley, Peter; Island Guardian (The); Jack A. Houston (E-mail); Jacobs,Addison;Jason Hartney (E-mail); Jean Amick (E-mail); Jeanne Burbidge (E-mail); JenonLaurene (E-mail);

Jensen, Marlyn; Jensen, Tom; Johnson, Eric; Kalibak, Bill;Kallo, Judith; Kelly, Brian; King, Steve; Kinoshita,Ron (HDR Engineering);Klunder, Doug (ACLU-WA Privacy Project Director); Knauss, Del; Koenig,Robery;Kotscher, Christian; Kovacich, Dan; Kuruvilla Santosh (E-mail); Kushner, Mark;LaBorde, Bill;Larner, Jordan; Lawrence J. Gary (E-mail); Leahy, James R;Leahy, Rusty (DEA); Lee, Terry; Levy Doug (E-mail); Libby, Mark; Litchfield,Steve; Littel John (E-mail); Little Connie (E-mail); Liu, Liana; LookingbillDean(E-mail); Marc Bissonnette (E-mail); Mick Horan (E-mail); Mike Leighan(E-mail); Ralph Dinsmore; Rep.Kilmer, Derek; Sharon Kivisto (E-mail); SnoqualmiePass Times; Stephan Clifton (E-mail); Steve Demeroutis(E-mail); Tom Gaetz(E-mail); Tracy Hills (E-mail)Subject: Transportation Commission Minutes

Attached for your informationare the approved Minutes from the following twoTransportation Commissionmeetings: June 22, 2010 Aberdeen Local Commission Meeting June 23, 2010 Regular Commission Meeting, Olympia If you have any questions,please contact the Commission Office at 360-705-7070. Thank you! Pam Boyd

ExecutiveAssistant

StateTransportation Commission

www.wstc.wa.gov

ne*** eSafe2 scanned this email for malicious content ***ne*** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders ***ne

From: Reinmuth, Steve [email protected]: Hammond, Paula [email protected]; Dye, Dave [email protected]; Arnis, [email protected]; Vaughn, Doug [email protected]; Ziegler, Jennifer [email protected]: Berntsen, Teresa [email protected]; Auyoung, Dillon [email protected]; Pierce,Steve [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Brown, [email protected]; Alexander, Jay [email protected]; Lenzi, Jerry C [email protected];Ford, Bill [email protected]; Moseley, David [email protected]: Initiative 467 - TollingDate: 10/6/2010 10:06:05 AMAttachments: I-467.pdf; draft I-467.doc

Thisis a new initiative. I-467seems to really tackle two things. First, it restates that tolls must beused for 18th

Amendment purposes. Second, it limits the use oftolls to capital expenses associatedwith a project and bans the use of tollsfor operations, maintenance, preservation,optimizing system capacity,etc. The text of the initiative also expressly mentions I-90and requirestolls to be used for 18th Amendment purposes. Craig,Jennifer or Amy, have we assessed what the passage of the initiative could dotocurrent financial planning for the use of tolls?

From: Brown, Bryce (ATG)[mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 7:32 AM

To: Stone, Craig; Ziegler, Jennifer

Cc: Auyoung, Dillon; Reinmuth, Steve; Brown, Bryce

Subject: FW: draft ballot title for I-467

Has theTolling Division conducted a review of I-467?

_____________________________________________From: Waldron, Becky (ATG)Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 11:28 AMTo: Hart, Marnie (ATG); Copsey, Alan (ATG); Egeler, Anne (ATG); Geck,Jay (ATG); Even, Jeff (ATG); Zipp,Allyson (ATG); Brown, Bryce (ATG); Amber,Delores (ATG)Cc: Pharris, James (ATG)Subject: draft ballot title for I-467

Please reviewand comment to Jim before noon, 10/11. Thanks.

<<I-467.pdf>><<draft I-467.doc>>

*** eSafe1 scanned this email for malicious content ****** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders ***

From: Wrenn, Pamela M. [email protected]: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Slack, Terri [email protected]: I-90 draft schedulesDate: 12/19/2010 3:09:56 PMAttachments: Draft I-90 Schedule Memo 121710.docx; Draft I-90 Tolling Schedules 1-4 121710.pdf; DraftSchedule v3 Full Roadway Single Point 121710.mpp; Draft Schedule v2 Dual Express with Single HOT121710.mpp; Draft Schedule v4 HybridFullRoadway with HOT combined contract 121710.mpp

Patty, with the next several emails I’m sending drafts of some of our I-90 deliverables. Not sure how youwant to go about the review of these documents. All of them will be included as appendices in theImplementation Plan and Concept of Operations, which ties them together. Perhaps we should discusstomorrow? Thanks --Pam Pamela Wrenn, PE

Jacobs

Engineer | Trans Progrm, Seattle

206.437.9047

206.490.4201 fax

[email protected]

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: Wrenn, Pamela M. [email protected]: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Slack, Terri [email protected]: I-90 estimates and signing concept memoDate: 12/19/2010 3:12:18 PMAttachments: I-90 HOT lane toll system Cost Estimate draft v5.xlsx; AH - I-90 SIGNING OPTIONS TECHMEMO 20101218 draft v3.docx

There are figures to go with the signing concept memo, but they are slightly out of date since we movedthe HOT Lane access points so I’m not sure about including them in the review. We can discusstomorrow. Pamela Wrenn, PE

Jacobs


206.437.9047

206.490.4201 fax

[email protected]


*** eSafe2 scanned this email for malicious content ****** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders ***

From: Wrenn, Pamela M. [email protected]: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]: Slack, Terri [email protected]; Dewey, Victoria(Consultant)[email protected]; Minden, Betsy [email protected]: I-90 environmental strategy memoDate: 12/19/2010 3:14:38 PMAttachments: Environmental Strategy Memo Draft 121810 v3.doc

Patty, here is our draft memo regarding environmental strategy. We will be sitting down with Allison at10:30 tomorrow to go over this and the Purpose and Need Statement, and I think at that point she isexpecting to start her review. --Pam Pamela Wrenn, PE

Jacobs


206.437.9047

206.490.4201 fax

[email protected]



From: Wrenn, Pamela M. [email protected]: Hanson, Allison [email protected]; McAfee, Gina [email protected]; Slack, [email protected]; Dewey,Victoria (Consultant) [email protected]; Rubstello,[email protected]; Michaud, Patricia [email protected]:Subject: RE: meeting this morning regarding I-90 tolling environmentalDate: 12/20/2010 10:28:23 AMAttachments: Environmental Strategy Memo Draft 121810 v3.doc; Purpose and Need Memo DRAFT121410.doc

Sorry, forgot to attach!

From: Wrenn, Pamela M.Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 9:28 AMTo: 'Hanson, Allison'; McAfee, Gina L.; Slack, Terri; Dewey, Victoria (Consultant); 'Rubstello, Patty'; 'Michaud,Patricia'Subject: meeting this morning regarding I-90 tolling environmental

All, please see the draft documents. We will preview at the meeting, so no need to read before then! If you are calling in, please use the following number: Call-in: (866) 365-4406; #4155577

Pamela Wrenn, PE

Jacobs


206.437.9047

206.490.4201 fax

[email protected]



From: Slack, Terri [email protected]: Wrenn, Pamela M. [email protected]; [email protected]@wsdot.wa.gov;[email protected] [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; Hunter,[email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected]@wsdot.wa.gov; [email protected]@wsdot.wa.gov; [email protected]@wsdot.wa.gov; [email protected] [email protected]: Milligan, Tyler K. [email protected]; Dewey, Victoria(Consultant)[email protected]; Bailey-Campbell, [email protected];Nees, Katie [email protected]; Nelson, Donald [email protected]: RE: reviewing I-90 toll implementation plan and concept of operationsDate: 12/20/2010 6:36:26 PMAttachments: 20101217_I-90_Toll_Con_Ops_2.docx

All -

Sorry for the delay in sending. Please find attached the draft I-90 Toll Implementation Plan and Concpet ofOperations. Please review and provide your comments by Thursday, December 23.

Please let either myself or Pam Wrenn know if you have any questions.

Thank you for your review.

Terri SlackNational Toll and Finance Program ManagerJacobs Engineering [email protected]

From: Wrenn, Pamela M.Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 10:12 PMTo: [email protected]; [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty; Hunter, Carol;[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]: Slack, Terri; Milligan, Tyler K.; Dewey, Victoria (Consultant)Subject: reviewing I-90 toll implementation plan and concept of operations

All – you have been identified as reviewers for the draft I-90 Toll Implementation Plan and Concept ofOperations which needs to be ready prior to legislative session (ie: before Jan). We anticipate having thedocument to you Monday morning 12/20. I would like comments prior to your holiday break. I will be in touch regarding meeting with you individually or in small groups so we can discuss thedocument, an alternative to written comments which may save time. Please let me know if you prefer one method over the other. --Pam Pamela Wrenn, PE

Jacobs


206.437.9047

206.490.4201 fax

[email protected]

from: rubstello, patty [email protected] subject: … prr 2010 emails.pdf · analysis on hov 3+...

Documents