2012 - City of Mercer Island

Transcription

From: Sulman, Kym [email protected]
To: Stone, Craig [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: RE: Final Draft letter to Legislature
Date: 1/5/2012 7:53:51 PM
Attachments:
I can only imagine. It sounds like everyone is going out of their way to avoid the tolling. You should toll I90.
Anyway, you came across as professional, sincere and most of all, clear (which is so refreshing). Just
wanted you to know. Proud of you!
From: Stone, Craig [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 6:30 PM
To: Sulman, Kym
Thanks. It has been an interesting time.
From: Sulman, Kym [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Stone, Craig
I’ve been watching you on TV for the last week and a half, and wanted to tell you that I thought you did a
fabulous job describing the 520 tolling. I was proud to know you!!
From: Stone, Craig [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Baillie, Geoff (Consultant); Gausepohl, Anita; Smith, Brian; Daly, Sharon (King County); Dave Kaplan;
Upthegrove, Dave; Doug Levy; [email protected]; Dalglish, Flora; Geoff Baillie; Creighton, John;
Julia Patterson (King County); Karen Spencer; Sulman, Kym; Larsen, Chad; [email protected]; Ellis, Lesa City of SeaTac; Eng, Lorena; Hernandez, Marcela; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jilek,
Pete (FHWA); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Rick Forschler;
Suzette Cook; Anderson, Terry - City of SeaTac Council Member
Cc: Biggs, Jason R.; [email protected]; Cary Roe (FW); [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Davad Ramesh;
[email protected]; Delwar, Murshed; [email protected]; [email protected];
Everett, Susan; Fellows, Rob; [email protected]; Hanson, Allison; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Colyar,
James (FHWA); Janarthanan, Natarajan; Kukes, Cameron; [email protected]; Leavitt, Elizabeth; Hallenbeck,
Mark; Cummings, Mike (PSRC); Mooney, Cathy; Noyes, Thomas; Paul Takamine (King County);
[email protected]; Poor, Geraldine; Pope, David; [email protected]; Ridge,
Cathal; Sallis, Michael; [email protected]; Trussler, Stacy; Gut, T - CI Seatac; Hooper, Thomas; Tim LaPorte
(Kent); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Yan, Shuming
I would ask that the letter be sent as soon as possible. I would also ask if consideration has been made to
also address to the Governor, or a second letter directly to her, or as a minimum a cc.
Craig
From: Baillie, Geoff (Consultant)
To: Gausepohl, Anita; Smith, Brian; Daly, Sharon (King County); Dave Kaplan; Upthegrove, Dave; Doug Levy;
Emiko Atherton ([email protected]); Dalglish, Flora; Geoff Baillie; John Creighton
([email protected]); Julia Patterson (King County); Karen Spencer; Kym Sulman (E-mail); Larsen,
Chad; Les Thomas ([email protected]); Lisa Ellis; Eng, Lorena; Marcella Hernandez; Margarita Prentice
([email protected]); Patrick Briggs ([email protected]); Jilek, Pete (FHWA); Rachel Smith
([email protected]); Rep. Bob Hasegawa ([email protected]); Rep. Zack Hudgins
([email protected]); Rick Forschler; Stone, Craig; Suzette Cook; Terry Anderson
Cc: Biggs, Jason R.; Brandon Carver ([email protected]); Cary Roe (FW); [email protected];
[email protected]; Dan Gatchet ([email protected]); Daryl Tapio ([email protected]); Davad
Ramesh; David Beal ([email protected]); Delwar, Murshed; Don Petersen
([email protected]); Elizabeth Stratton ([email protected]); Everett, Susan; Fellows, Rob;
[email protected]; Hanson, Allison; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Colyar, James (FHWA); Janarthanan,
Natarajan; Kukes, Cameron; Larry Blanchard ([email protected]); [email protected]; Hallenbeck,
Mark; Cummings, Mike (PSRC); Mooney, Cathy; Noyes, Thomas; Paul Takamine (King County); Peter Landry
([email protected]); [email protected]; Pope, David; Richard Perez
([email protected]); Ridge, Cathal; Sallis, Michael; Sean Ardussi ([email protected]); Trussler,
Stacy; [email protected]; Thomas Hooper ([email protected]); Tim LaPorte (Kent);
[email protected]; Virginia Mercado ([email protected]); Wayne Snoey
([email protected]); Yan, Shuming
Subject: Final Draft letter to Legislature
Attached is the final draft letter from the SR 509 project Executive Committee the legislature. This
includes Port comments. Unless anyone has another revision that needs to be made, this letter is ready
to be prepared for signatures.
From: Fellows, Rob [email protected]
To: Craig Stone [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: RE: Motorcycles and HOV/HOT lanes
Date: 2/2/2012 10:44:50 AM
Attachments: Federal Toll Programs and Conditions Matrix.pdf
--- DRAFT RESPONSE --Clint and Hayley,
You’re correct that motorcycles are not charged on the SR 167 HOT lanes, and that our tolling contract
with FHWA stipulates that as a condition for granting toll authority under the HOV to HOT regulations.
Motorcycles with transponders using the SR 167 HOT lane are recognized by the toll system and no toll is
applied.
For I-405, financial planning has also assumed that motorcycles will be exempted from express toll lanes.
However, as you noted, the Transportation Commission will need to establish whether to grant toll
exemptions to motorcycles through their rate-setting authority. While the Commission prefers to
maintain an “everyone pays” approach, they have in the past honored federal-state tolling agreements
negotiated to receive federal toll authority.
There is one wrinkle to this story. There are several different sections of federal code under which a
state can request authority to establish tolls on an interstate facility, and each has different guidelines
and restrictions. It’s not fully clear yet whether the HOV to HOT mechanism will be the most appropriate
for I-405 express toll lanes; it’s possible that a different program such as value pricing might be the better
fit. If so, that program is more flexible and allows greater latitude for states to choose their preferred
tolling policies, including whether to grant toll exemptions for motorcycles.
FYI, I’ve attached the matrix FHWA sent us in response to our I-90 express of interest for tolling. It
identifies all the programs under which federal toll authority can be granted and the conditions that
apply to each.
Craig
From: Gamble, Hayley [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:39 PM
To: Stone, Craig; Fellows, Rob
Cc: McCarthy, Clint
Subject: RE: Motorcycles and HOV/HOT lanes
Hello,
We are hearing a bill that is related to this issue tomorrow, so if you could get back to us today that
would be great.
Thanks
Hayley
_____________________________________________
From: McCarthy, Clint
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 2:38 PM
To: [email protected]; Fellows, Rob ([email protected])
Cc: Gamble, Hayley
Subject: FW: Motorcycles and HOV/HOT lanes
Craig & Rob,
Please see Hayley’s questions below. If you could copy both of us on your response, we’d sincerely
appreciate it.
Thanks,
cjm
_____________________________________________
From: Gamble, Hayley
To: McCarthy, Clint
Subject: Motorcycles and HOV/HOT lanes
Clint, can you forward to the appropriate folks. I would appreciate answers by COB Tuesday
at the latest.
Hayley
1. Can you confirm that motorcycles are not charged a fee on the 167 HOT lanes as these are
converted HOV lanes, and per federal law, motorcycles must be allowed to use HOV lanes for
free, unless there is a safety issue.
2. Given the above, and given that any HOT lanes on I-405 would be a mix of new lanes and
converted HOV lanes, is it fair to say that motorcycles will not be charged on I-405? I know
the Commission sets the state toll exemptions, but they would be bound by any federal
prohibitions, correct?
3. What happens today when a motorcycle with a transponder uses the 167 HOT/HOT lane? Do
they have to call and ask for reimbursement?
Federal regs:
High Occupancy Toll Vehicles - 23 U.S.C. 166(b)(4)
A HOT vehicle is any vehicle that is charged a toll to use an HOV facility when it does not meet the
posted minimum occupancy requirements for an HOV lane. If a State decides to allow HOT vehicles
to use an HOV lane, the State must also (1) establish programs addressing how operators of HOT
vehicles can enroll and participate in the toll program; (2) develop, manage, and maintain a system
that will automatically collect the toll; and (3) establish policies and procedures to manage the
demand of the facility by such vehicles by varying the toll amount and enforcing violations. Further,
operational performance must be consistent with Federal requirements. In addition, a toll agreement
must be executed between the FHWA, the State Department of Transportation, and operating
agencies. HOT lanes may be established on both Interstate and non-Interstate facilities.
Motorcycles and bicycles - 23 U.S.C. 166(b)(2)
Motorcycles and bicycles must be allowed to use HOV facilities. However, a State may elect to
restrict motorcycle or bicycle (or both) use of an HOV facility due to safety concerns. If a State does
decide to exclude motorcycles and/or bicycles, a certification stating that their presence creates a
safety hazard must be submitted to the FHWA for approval. Prior to acceptance, the FHWA will
publish the request in the Federal Register, providing an opportunity for public comment. After the
State has addressed the comments received (if any), FHWA will approve the request. States should
submit their certifications to the FHWA Division Office.
From: Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIG
To: Gamble; Hayley; McCarthy; Clint
Cc: Fellows; Rob; Smith; Helena Kennedy
Date: 2/2/2012 6:00:49 PM
Attachments: Federal Toll Programs and Conditions Matrix.pdf
Clint and Hayley,
You’re correct that motorcycles are not charged on the SR 167 HOT lanes, and that our tolling contract
with FHWA stipulates that as a condition for granting toll authority under the HOV to HOT regulations.
Motorcycles with transponders using the SR 167 HOT lane are recognized by the toll system and no toll is
applied.
For I-405, financial planning has also assumed that motorcycles will be exempted from express toll lanes.
However, as you noted, the Transportation Commission will need to establish whether to grant toll
exemptions to motorcycles through their rate-setting authority. While the Commission prefers to
maintain an “everyone pays” approach, they have in the past honored federal-state tolling agreements
negotiated to receive federal toll authority.
There is one wrinkle to this story. There are several different sections of federal code under which a
state can request authority to establish tolls on an interstate facility, and each has different guidelines
and restrictions. It’s not fully clear yet whether the HOV to HOT mechanism will be the most appropriate
for I-405 express toll lanes; it’s possible that a different program such as value pricing might be the better
fit. If so, that program is more flexible and allows greater latitude for states to choose their preferred
tolling policies, including whether to grant toll exemptions for motorcycles.
FYI, I’ve attached the matrix FHWA sent us in response to our I-90 express of interest for tolling. It
identifies all the programs under which federal toll authority can be granted and the conditions that
apply to each.
Craig
_____________________________________________
From: McCarthy, Clint
To: [email protected]; Fellows, Rob ([email protected])
Cc: Gamble, Hayley
Craig & Rob,
Please see Hayley’s questions below. If you could copy both of us on your response, we’d sincerely
appreciate it.
Thanks,
cjm
_____________________________________________
From: Gamble, Hayley
To: McCarthy, Clint
Subject: Motorcycles and HOV/HOT lanes
Clint, can you forward to the appropriate folks. I would appreciate answers by COB Tuesday
at the latest.
Hayley
1. Can you confirm that motorcycles are not charged a fee on the 167 HOT lanes as these are
converted HOV lanes, and per federal law, motorcycles must be allowed to use HOV lanes for
free, unless there is a safety issue.
2. Given the above, and given that any HOT lanes on I-405 would be a mix of new lanes and
converted HOV lanes, is it fair to say that motorcycles will not be charged on I-405? I know
the Commission sets the state toll exemptions, but they would be bound by any federal
prohibitions, correct?
3. What happens today when a motorcycle with a transponder uses the 167 HOT/HOT lane? Do
they have to call and ask for reimbursement?
Federal regs:
High Occupancy Toll Vehicles - 23 U.S.C. 166(b)(4)
A HOT vehicle is any vehicle that is charged a toll to use an HOV facility when it does not meet the
posted minimum occupancy requirements for an HOV lane. If a State decides to allow HOT vehicles
to use an HOV lane, the State must also (1) establish programs addressing how operators of HOT
vehicles can enroll and participate in the toll program; (2) develop, manage, and maintain a system
that will automatically collect the toll; and (3) establish policies and procedures to manage the
demand of the facility by such vehicles by varying the toll amount and enforcing violations. Further,
operational performance must be consistent with Federal requirements. In addition, a toll agreement
must be executed between the FHWA, the State Department of Transportation, and operating
agencies. HOT lanes may be established on both Interstate and non-Interstate facilities.
Motorcycles and bicycles - 23 U.S.C. 166(b)(2)
Motorcycles and bicycles must be allowed to use HOV facilities. However, a State may elect to
restrict motorcycle or bicycle (or both) use of an HOV facility due to safety concerns. If a State does
decide to exclude motorcycles and/or bicycles, a certification stating that their presence creates a
safety hazard must be submitted to the FHWA for approval. Prior to acceptance, the FHWA will
publish the request in the Federal Register, providing an opportunity for public comment. After the
State has addressed the comments received (if any), FHWA will approve the request. States should
submit their certifications to the FHWA Division Office.
From:
Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV) [email protected]
To:
Stone, Craig [email protected]
Cc:
Subject:
RE: Did you all talk to Christie about I-90?
Date:
2/3/2012 1:08:25 PM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------Ok, I thought it was more like two years. You probably want to let Paula know.
She was in the same meeting with me.
-----Original Message----From: Stone, Craig [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 11:59 AM
To: Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV)
Subject: Re: Did you all talk to Christie about I-90?
That due to potential controversy from Mercer Island and other locals an EIS
could take upto 4 years. We did an EA for SR520 tolling, but had the backdrop
of the larger SR520 process that dealt with many of the controversies.
It is not FHWA that would drive us to an EIS.
We also said if the legislature can be very clear what the goals and
requirements are that would help.
----- Original Message ----From: Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV) <[email protected]>
To: Stone, Craig
Sent: Fri Feb 03 11:44:49 2012
Subject: RE: Did you all talk to Christie about I-90?
She heard that the schedule for an EIS is 4 years. What did you all tell
Christie?
To: Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV); Dye, Dave
Helena and I did have a discussion with Chrisite around 10:00 am about I-90.
To: Stone, Craig; Dye, Dave
Sent: Fri Feb 03 09:59:20 2012
Subject: Did you all talk to Christie about I-90?
Clibborn is asking in a meeting right now.
From:
Stone, Craig /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STONE, CRAIG
To:
Ziegler; Jennifer
Cc:
Subject:
Re: Did you all talk to Christie about I-90?
Date:
2/3/2012 7:58:38 PM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------That due to potential controversy from Mercer Island and other locals an EIS
could take upto 4 years. We did an EA for SR520 tolling, but had the backdrop
of the larger SR520 process that dealt with many of the controversies.
It is not FHWA that would drive us to an EIS.
We also said if the legislature can be very clear what the goals and
requirements are that would help.
To: Stone, Craig
Sent: Fri Feb 03 11:44:49 2012
Subject: RE: Did you all talk to Christie about I-90?
She heard that the schedule for an EIS is 4 years. What did you all tell
Christie?
To: Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV); Dye, Dave
Helena and I did have a discussion with Chrisite around 10:00 am about I-90.
To: Stone, Craig; Dye, Dave
Sent: Fri Feb 03 09:59:20 2012
Subject: Did you all talk to Christie about I-90?
Clibborn is asking in a meeting right now.
From: Hammond, Paula [email protected]
To: Jennifer Ziegler [email protected]; Robin (GOV) Rettew [email protected]; Ron
Judd [email protected]; Dave Dye [email protected]; Craig Stone [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: Fwd: Potential I-90 Proviso
Date: 2/8/2012 5:42:01 AM
Attachments:
FYI this is consistent with conversations with the chair in the last week. Getting the environmental
work started gives us a better chance to match up with Sound Transits work on the bridge. I gave
Joni a heads up that we needed to line up our schedules on both bridges.
Craig, we need to understand the federal approval process and timeline.
Paula
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Stone, Craig" <[email protected]>
Date: February 7, 2012 10:35:48 PM CST
To: "Hammond, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Dye, Dave" <[email protected]>
Subject: Potential I-90 Proviso
We are continuing to work with Christie Parker on possible I-90 funding from the House.
Helena has coordinated with Amy and Jay on this today.
Below is draft proviso language that we want to send to Christie by noon Wednesday. We will want to
extend the limit in Issaquah from SR 900 to Sunset.
Please advise if you have direction ar changes before we reply.
Craig
From: Smith, Helena Kennedy
To: Stone, Craig; Arnis, Amy
Sent: Tue Feb 07 14:15:16 2012
Subject: Request from Christie/ need your attention
Craig and Amy,
This is restricted. This afternoon, Christie Parker asked me to draft I-90 proviso language on
behalf of the Chair.
Proposed Proviso Language:
$------ of the transportation partnership account state or other are provided solely for
the I-90 Tolling Environmental Review (PIN xxxxx). The department shall
undertake a comprehensive environmental review of tolling I-90 between I-5 and I-405
for the purpose of both managing traffic and providing funding for construction of the
unfunded SR 520 I-5 to Medina project. The environmental review shall include
significant outreach to potentially affected communities. The department may consider
traffic management options that extend as far east as SR 900.
Please review the above. Do you agree with the text above? Note I was specifically requested
not to reference HOV or HOT.
I believe we need to touch base with folks inside WSDOT this afternoon about the Chair’s
initiative without letting the word out. I presume at a minimum that Paula, Dave, and Jay
should know about this request. I’ll defer to you if there are others you think should have a
heads up prior to the release of the budget next week.
While you are reviewing the proposed language and alerting those who need to know, I will
work with Patty and Jennifer Charlebois to provide budget information. We need to say how
much we need both this biennium and in total for the EIS. We should also disclose our
assumption for the cost and timeline for engineering and installing a toll system, but we
weren’t asked for a project budget for this item. I gather the biggest challenge is coming up
with this biennium’s budget, so it’s important we don’t over-estimate our needs for the
remainder of the biennium.
I promised to get text and budget to Christie no later than noon tomorrow. The chair may
make further edits, but I want to make sure we cover your interests.
Helena
Comments:
We can’t use the existing PIN that Patty currently uses. PIN 100067T is for an “I-90
Comprehensive Tolling Study.” The description: Analyze options for tolling the I-90
floating bridge.
From: Arnis, Amy [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: FW: I-90 language and budget request
Date: 2/8/2012 12:29:06 PM
Attachments:
I am assuming that you are looping Dave and Paula into this request?
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 11:06 AM
To: Parker, Christie
Cc: Stone, Craig; Arnis, Amy; Alexander, Jay
Subject: I-90 language and budget request
Importance: High
Christie, per your request, here is proposed proviso language. It has been blessed by Paula, Craig, and
Amy. Jay is aware of it also.
$------ of the transportation partnership account state or other are provided solely for the I-90
Tolling Environmental Review (PIN xxxxx). The department shall undertake a comprehensive
environmental review of tolling I-90 between I-5 and I-405 for the purpose of both managing
traffic and providing funding for construction of the unfunded SR 520 I-5 to Medina project. The
environmental review shall include significant outreach to potentially affected communities. The
department may consider traffic management options that extend as far east as Issaquah.
Regarding budget:
·
·
·
Helena
The estimate for the entire environmental process is $8 million.
o This includes environmental clearance, public outreach, sufficient engineering to support
the environmental review, and financial analysis of alternatives.
o During this time, we would also seek federal approval for tolling an interstate.
We presume the $1.5 million currently in PIN 100067T for an “I-90 Comprehensive Tolling
Study” can help pay for the EIS. (We will want to establish a new PIN for the environmental
review since the current PIN description limits us: “Analyze options for tolling the I-90 floating
bridge.”
How the funding should be aged over the remainder of this biennium and 13-15.
o I’ve spoken with Patty Rubstello and we would need between $1.5 - $2.5 million in
addition to the current $1.5 m budget for the remainder of 11-13. Then I spoke with
Craig and he’s willing to cut that request back to $1.5 million additional. Total request
for 11-13 should be $3 million.
o The remaining $5 million should be programmed in 13-15.
o It is possible the environmental process will take four years, but at this time, it is too early
to tell.
From: Smith, Helena Kennedy /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=HSMITH
To: Parker; Christie
Cc: Stone; Craig; Arnis; Amy; Alexander; Jay
Subject: I-90 language and budget request
Date: 2/8/2012 7:06:06 PM
Attachments:
Christie, per your request, here is proposed proviso language. It has been blessed by Paula, Craig, and
Amy. Jay is aware of it also.
$------ of the transportation partnership account state or other are provided solely for the I-90
Tolling Environmental Review (PIN xxxxx). The department shall undertake a comprehensive
environmental review of tolling I-90 between I-5 and I-405 for the purpose of both managing
traffic and providing funding for construction of the unfunded SR 520 I-5 to Medina project. The
environmental review shall include significant outreach to potentially affected communities. The
department may consider traffic management options that extend as far east as Issaquah.
Regarding budget:
·
·
·
Helena
The estimate for the entire environmental process is $8 million.
o This includes environmental clearance, public outreach, sufficient engineering to support
the environmental review, and financial analysis of alternatives.
o During this time, we would also seek federal approval for tolling an interstate.
We presume the $1.5 million currently in PIN 100067T for an “I-90 Comprehensive Tolling
Study” can help pay for the EIS. (We will want to establish a new PIN for the environmental
review since the current PIN description limits us: “Analyze options for tolling the I-90 floating
bridge.”
How the funding should be aged over the remainder of this biennium and 13-15.
o I’ve spoken with Patty Rubstello and we would need between $1.5 - $2.5 million in
addition to the current $1.5 m budget for the remainder of 11-13. Then I spoke with
Craig and he’s willing to cut that request back to $1.5 million additional. Total request
for 11-13 should be $3 million.
o The remaining $5 million should be programmed in 13-15.
o It is possible the environmental process will take four years, but at this time, it is too early
to tell.
From: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]
To: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: Re: Time Sensitive Question-Tolling Amendment
Date: 2/14/2012 5:34:32 PM
Attachments:
Is PSRC plugged in to this? Seems like they should be.
From: Stone, Craig
To: Camden, Allison; Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave
Cc: Fellows, Rob
Sent: Tue Feb 14 16:28:34 2012
Subject: RE: Time Sensitive Question-Tolling Amendment
I have great concern with the tolling amendment. This amendment offered by Rep Canseco would
prohibit any funds under the title to be used to approve or authorize any toll on any segment of the
federal-aid system that is complete, not tolled, constructed with fed funds, and is in operations. This
means I-90 across Lake Washington could not be considered for tolling. This could have a serious affect
on financial plans for completing SR 520.
As I read the prior language under Sec 1204 on tolling in HR 7, if the language under (a) Basic Program is
left in place then it looks like CRC and AWV will be covered as they include reconstruction, replacement
and/or increased lanes that add capacity. It appears the amendment would not modify that language.
I recommend that we express our opposition to the amendment asap.
Craig
From: Camden, Allison
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 3:09 PM
Subject: Time Sensitive Question-Tolling Amendment
Importance: High
Hi Craig and Rob –
Tomorrow this tolling amendment will be debated on the House floor:
http://www.rules.house.gov/amendments/Canseco023213121015591559.pdf.
It appears to ban tolling on “any segment of highway located on the Federal-aid system” that was built
with federal funds before enactment and didn’t have tolls before enactment, with some exceptions for
HOV to HOT lane conversions and for new capacity. Because it says “any segment of highway” I don’t
know if that would apply to a bridge. Do you have concerns with this language? Do you think this would
impact the CRC?
Debate starts early tomorrow morning so I need to get our thoughts to the congressional delegation
ASAP. If possible please get back to me by the end of the day.
Thanks!
-Allison
Allison Dane Camden
Federal Relations Manager
Washington State Department of Transportation
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
From: Camden, Allison [email protected]
To: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Hammond, Paula [email protected]; Dye, Dave
[email protected]
Cc: Fellows, Rob [email protected]
Date: 2/14/2012 5:39:39 PM
Attachments:
Got it, thanks for the quick response. I’ll let the delegation know we strongly oppose the amendment.
-Allison
From: Stone, Craig
To: Camden, Allison; Hammond, Paula; Dye, Dave
Cc: Fellows, Rob
Craig
Importance: High
impact the CRC?
Thanks!
-Allison
Allison Dane Camden
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
From: Dye, Dave [email protected]
Cc: Camden, Allison [email protected]; Hammond, Paula [email protected];
Fellows, Rob [email protected]
Date: 2/14/2012 5:46:34 PM
Attachments:
I concur we should reach out tomorrow Allison to as many members we can - and other supporters
like transit and seattle and king county - this action essentially takes the Feds out of the funding
equation and removes a key state strategy for managing congestion in the future - I assume both
senators will support us also
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2012, at 6:28 PM, "Stone, Craig" <[email protected]> wrote:
federal-aid system that is complete, not tolled, constructed with fed funds, and is in operations.
This means I-90 across Lake Washington could not be considered for tolling. This could have a
serious affect on financial plans for completing SR 520.
As I read the prior language under Sec 1204 on tolling in HR 7, if the language under (a) Basic
Program is left in place then it looks like CRC and AWV will be covered as they include
reconstruction, replacement and/or increased lanes that add capacity. It appears the amendment
would not modify that language.
Craig
Importance: High
It appears to ban tolling on “any segment of highway located on the Federal-aid system” that was
built with federal funds before enactment and didn’t have tolls before enactment, with some
exceptions for HOV to HOT lane conversions and for new capacity. Because it says “any segment of
highway” I don’t know if that would apply to a bridge. Do you have concerns with this language?
Do you think this would impact the CRC?
Debate starts early tomorrow morning so I need to get our thoughts to the congressional
delegation ASAP. If possible please get back to me by the end of the day.
Thanks!
-Allison
Allison Dane Camden
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
To: Dye, Dave [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]
Cc: Hammond, Paula [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]
Date: 2/14/2012 6:50:55 PM
Attachments:
Thanks. I’ll flag this for Seattle, King Country, Sound Transit and PSRC. The amendment is being offered
to a House bill so neither Murray or Cantwell will be able to vote against it, but I’ll also flag it for their
staff in case this issue comes up on the Senate side or in conference.
From: Dye, Dave
To: Stone, Craig
Cc: Camden, Allison; Hammond, Paula; Fellows, Rob
I concur we should reach out tomorrow Allison to as many members we can - and other supporters like
transit and seattle and king county - this action essentially takes the Feds out of the funding equation and
removes a key state strategy for managing congestion in the future - I assume both senators will support
us also
Sent from my iPhone
Craig
Importance: High
Thanks!
-Allison
Allison Dane Camden
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
To: Camden; Allison; Hammond; Paula; Dye; Dave
Cc: Fellows; Rob
Date: 2/15/2012 12:28:34 AM
Attachments:
Craig
Importance: High
impact the CRC?
Thanks!
-Allison
Allison Dane Camden
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
To: Camden; Allison
Cc: Fellows; Rob
Date: 2/15/2012 12:56:26 AM
Attachments:
The PSRC should also be concerned with the language and could support the position to oppose.
From: Dye, Dave
To: Stone, Craig
Cc: Camden, Allison; Hammond, Paula; Fellows, Rob
I concur we should reach out tomorrow Allison to as many members we can - and other supporters like
transit and seattle and king county - this action essentially takes the Feds out of the funding equation and
removes a key state strategy for managing congestion in the future - I assume both senators will support
us also
Sent from my iPhone
Craig
Importance: High
Thanks!
-Allison
Allison Dane Camden
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
From: Smith, Helena Kennedy /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=HSMITH
To: Charlebois; Jennifer; Rubstello; Patty
Cc: Stone; Craig
Subject: Text of House Proviso (I Program)
Date: 2/22/2012 10:58:24 PM
Attachments:
(24) $1,500,000 of the motor vehicle account--federal
appropriation is provided solely for the I-90 Comprehensive Tolling
Study and Environmental Review project (100067T). The department
shall
undertake a comprehensive environmental review of tolling
Interstate 90
between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of both
managing traffic and providing funding for construction of the
unfunded
state route number 520 from Interstate 5 to Medina project. The
environmental review must include significant outreach to
potentially
affected communities. The department may consider traffic
management
options that extend as far east as Issaquah.
Note that there is not an equivalent proviso in the Senate. In
order to see whether it stays in, we’ll have to wait for the
conference budget.
From:
Rubstello, Patty [email protected]
To:
Smith, Helena Kennedy [email protected]; Charlebois, Jennifer
[email protected]
Cc:
Subject:
RE: Text of House Proviso (I Program)
Date:
2/23/2012 8:49:03 AM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------Any way to change the language to I-5 to Sunset I/C?
-----Original Message----From: Smith, Helena Kennedy
Sent: Wed 2/22/2012 2:58 PM
To: Charlebois, Jennifer; Rubstello, Patty
Cc: Stone, Craig
Subject: Text of House Proviso (I Program)
(24) $1,500,000 of the motor vehicle account--federal
appropriation is provided solely for the I-90 Comprehensive Tolling
Study and Environmental Review project (100067T). The department shall
undertake a comprehensive environmental review of tolling Interstate 90
between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of both
managing traffic and providing funding for construction of the unfunded
state route number 520 from Interstate 5 to Medina project. The
environmental review must include significant outreach to potentially
affected communities. The department may consider traffic management
options that extend as far east as Issaquah.
Note that there is not an equivalent proviso in the Senate. In order to see
whether it stays in, we'll have to wait for the conference budget.
From: Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV) [email protected]
To: Dye, Dave [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Arnis, Amy
[email protected]
Cc:
Subject: I-90 tolling
Date: 2/23/2012 4:22:53 PM
Attachments:
So, the viability of I-90 tolling from the federal perspective might come up in the House Transpo hearing
tomorrow. Committee staff thinks that there may not be any pilot program slots left. Does anyone have
the most up-to-date info?
Jennifer Ziegler
Transportation Policy Advisory, Executive Policy Office
Governor Chris Gregoire
360-902-0460
To: Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV) [email protected]
Cc: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Arnis, Amy [email protected]
Subject: Re: I-90 tolling
Date: 2/23/2012 4:39:25 PM
Attachments:
I believe there is one open slot left based on my recent conversation with us dot - in addition we
could seek an added slot via patty murray if necessary - craig your thoughts?
-dave
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 23, 2012, at 3:23 PM, "Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV)" <[email protected]> wrote:
So, the viability of I-90 tolling from the federal perspective might come up in the House Transpo
hearing tomorrow. Committee staff thinks that there may not be any pilot program slots left. Does
anyone have the most up-to-date info?
Jennifer Ziegler
360-902-0460
Cc: David Pope [email protected]; Todd Merkens [email protected]
Subject: RE: I-90 tolling
Date: 2/23/2012 5:33:09 PM
Attachments:
My impression is the same as yours; that we’ve already got a “slot” under value pricing, and the slots are
for states, not for projects. The FHWA website says that “FHWA may enter into cooperative agreements
with up to 15 State or local governments to establish value pricing programs, which may be used to
support an unlimited number of value pricing projects within each State.” Value Pricing was the only
program FHWA recommended to us for general tolling, but it’s possible that a section 129 agreement
could also work from my quick read of the eligibility matrix as long as we’re just tolling the bridge.
Reauthorization would eliminate value pricing, but the proposals I saw would broaden section 129 and
make it the only program available for general tolling other than HOT lanes. Already it appears that
section 129 would allow tolling an interstate bridge, with excess revenues able to be used on other title
23-eligible projects. But I’d want to confirm that with someone at FHWA since they didn’t address that
program in their response to our expression of interest. Are we now thinking the House legislation could
actually pass?
I think Allison is trying to follow this issue – it might be worth checking in with her too.
-- Rob
From: Stone, Craig
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 4:02 PM
To: Fellows, Rob; Pope, David
Here is my view. Rob/David, what is our uptodate knowledge on programs that I-90 could fit under? Please
investigate. I want us to discuss and I will reply to Jennifer.
Under the current program we are one of the states alteady in the value pricing program, which has been the
most probable program to use. This is consistent with what we told the leg workgroup and with the letter of
interest we had with FHWA during the toll implementation committee. The concern has been what
reauthorization will do with the tolling pilot programs.
I am not sure what the reference is to pursuing another slot. The reconstruction program still had a slot, but it
doesn't fit our needs as well.
From: Dye, Dave
To: Ziegler, Jennifer
Cc: Stone, Craig; Arnis, Amy
Sent: Thu Feb 23 15:39:25 2012
I believe there is one open slot left based on my recent conversation with us dot - in addition we could
seek an added slot via patty murray if necessary - craig your thoughts?
-dave
Sent from my iPhone
Jennifer Ziegler
360-902-0460
To: Fellows; Rob; Pope; David
Cc:
Date: 2/24/2012 12:01:55 AM
Attachments:
From: Dye, Dave
Sent: Thu Feb 23 15:39:25 2012
I believe there is one open slot left based on my recent conversation with us dot - in addition we
could seek an added slot via patty murray if necessary - craig your thoughts?
-dave
Sent from my iPhone
Jennifer Ziegler
360-902-0460
To: Dye; Dave; Ziegler; Jennifer
Cc: Arnis; Amy; Camden; Allison
Subject: FW: I-90 tolling
Date: 2/24/2012 6:11:48 AM
Attachments: Value Pricing Pilot Program Reauthorization 2-17-12.docx
This is what I know now. I will pursue my contacts in the morning to see what they are hearing.
Under the current program we are one of the states already in the value pricing program, which
has been the most probable program to use for I-90. This is consistent with what we told the 2211
leg workgroup, and with the expression of interest we had with FHWA during the toll
implementation committee. The value pricing program is limited to 15 states, but there is no
facility limitation once a state is eligible so I am not sure where committee staff is getting their
concern from.
Our concern has always been what reauthorization will do with the tolling pilot programs. Value
Pricing was the only program FHWA recommended to us for general tolling, but it’s possible that a
section 129 agreement could also work from a quick read of the eligibility matrix as long as we’re
just tolling the bridge. Reconstruction or replacement of free bridges or tunnels and conversion to
toll facilities is allowed, but the test will be 'reconstruction' of I-90. It may also not allow variable
tolling. We would have to work this with FHWA and possibly ask for help from the delegation to
get tolling similar to SR 520's operation.
From what we have seen reauthorization would eliminate value pricing, but the proposals we
have read would broaden section 129 and make it the only program available for general tolling
other than HOT lanes. There is a movement to get value pricing states to contact their
congressional delegation to keep the program. I recommend we do the same. The attached
speaks to this effort. However, based on what Allison is sending out, it looks like HR7 has stalled
so the value pricing program may stay around a little longer.
Below is a summary of information we know from FHWA.
Craig
The Federal-aid Highway Program, Title 23 of the United States Code (23 U.S.C.), offers States
and/or other public entities a variety of opportunities to toll motor vehicles to finance Interstate
construction and reconstruction, promote efficiency in the use of highways, reduce traffic congestion
and/or improve air quality. In addition to providing States and/or other public entities the authority
to toll motor vehicles, the Value Pricing Pilot program is unique in providing grants for preimplementation and non-construction related implementation costs of tolling, and for non-highway
related pricing activities.
The tolling and pricing programs include:
Express Lanes Demonstration Program ( Not applicable to I-90. Must add capacity.)
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Facilities (Not applicable to I-90, except for possible HOT
lane.)
Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Pilot Program (Virgina and Missouri are
already in, one slot open. Can not use excess toll revenue for another route.)
Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot Program (South Carolina in, two slots open. Can not
be used for tolling an existing free interstate.)
Title 23 USC Section 129 Toll Agreements (Very general requirements, could use for interstate
bridge. No variable tolling permitted.)
Value Pricing Pilot Program (Washington State already part of program. Program could
sunset.)
From: Dye, Dave
Sent: Thu Feb 23 15:39:25 2012
-dave
Sent from my iPhone
Jennifer Ziegler
360-902-0460
From:
Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV) [email protected]
To:
[email protected]; Dye, Dave [email protected]
Cc:
Arnis, Amy [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject:
Re: I-90 tolling
Date:
2/24/2012 8:28:40 AM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------Perfect. Thank you.
----- Original Message ----From: Stone, Craig [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Dye, Dave; Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV)
Cc: Arnis, Amy; Camden, Allison <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: I-90 tolling
This is what I know now.
they are hearing.
I will pursue my contacts in the morning to see what
Under the current program we are
program, which has been the most
consistent with what we told the
interest we had with FHWA during
pricing program is limited to 15
once a state is eligible so I am
their concern from.
one of the states already in the value pricing
probable program to use for I-90. This is
2211 leg workgroup, and with the expression of
the toll implementation committee. The value
states, but there is no facility limitation
not sure where committee staff is getting
Our concern has always been what reauthorization will do with the tolling pilot
programs. Value Pricing was the only program FHWA recommended to us for
general tolling, but it's possible that a section 129 agreement could also work
from a quick read of the eligibility matrix as long as we're just tolling the
bridge. Reconstruction or replacement of free bridges or tunnels and
conversion to toll facilities is allowed, but the test will be 'reconstruction'
of I-90.
It may also not allow variable tolling.
We would have to work this
with FHWA and possibly ask for help from the delegation to get tolling similar
to SR 520's operation.
From what we have seen reauthorization would eliminate value pricing, but the
proposals we have read would broaden section 129 and make it the only program
available for general tolling other than HOT lanes. There is a movement to get
value pricing states to contact their congressional delegation to keep the
program. I recommend we do the same. The attached speaks to this effort.
However, based on what Allison is sending out, it looks like HR7 has stalled so
the value pricing program may stay around a little longer.
Below is a summary of information we know from FHWA.
Craig
The Federal-aid Highway Program, Title 23 of the United States Code (23
U.S.C.), offers States and/or other public entities a variety of opportunities
to toll motor vehicles to finance Interstate construction and reconstruction,
promote efficiency in the use of highways, reduce traffic congestion and/or
improve air quality. In addition to providing States and/or other public
entities the authority to toll motor vehicles, the Value Pricing Pilot program
is unique in providing grants for pre-implementation and non-construction
related implementation costs of tolling, and for non-highway related pricing
activities.
The tolling and pricing programs include:
* Express Lanes Demonstration Program
<http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/express_lanes.htm> ( Not
applicable to I-90. Must add capacity.)
* High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Facilities
<http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/hov_facilities.htm> (Not
applicable to I-90, except for possible HOT lane.)
* Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Pilot Program
<http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/interstate_rr.htm>
(Virgina and
Missouri are already in, one slot open. Can not use excess toll revenue for
another route.)
* Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot Program
<http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/interstate_constr.htm>
(South
Carolina in, two slots open. Can not be used for tolling an existing free
interstate.)
* Title 23 USC Section 129 Toll Agreements
<http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/toll_agreements.htm> (Very
general requirements, could use for interstate bridge. No variable tolling
permitted.)
* Value Pricing Pilot Program
<http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/value_pricing/>
(Washington
State already part of program. Program could sunset.)
From: Dye, Dave
Sent: Thu Feb 23 15:39:25 2012
I believe there is one open slot left based on my recent conversation with us
dot - in addition we could seek an added slot via patty murray if necessary craig your thoughts?
-dave
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 23, 2012, at 3:23 PM, "Ziegler, Jennifer (GOV)"
<[email protected]> wrote:
So, the viability of I-90 tolling from the federal perspective might come up in
the House Transpo hearing tomorrow. Committee staff thinks that there may not
be any pilot program slots left. Does anyone have the most up-to-date info?
Jennifer Ziegler
360-902-0460
From: Pope, David [email protected]
To: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]
Cc:
Date: 2/24/2012 8:38:51 AM
Attachments:
Craig,
I think your summary from 10:12 PM last night is correct, however I think you meant, under
Section 129 when you wrote, “Reconstruction or replacement of free bridges or tunnels and
conversion to toll facilities is allowed, but the test will be 'reconstruction' of I-90. It may also not
allow variable tolling.”
I-90 could be authorized under the Value Pricing program. My research indicates that any new
reauthorization is unlikely this year, so Value Pricing will most likely continue to be available.
The “open slot” was under the interstate reconstruction section of 129 and press reports say that
has been given to North Carolina. See here: http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5766
R. David Pope
WSDOT Toll Division
(206) 450-9938
From: Stone, Craig
To: Fellows, Rob; Pope, David
From: Dye, Dave
Sent: Thu Feb 23 15:39:25 2012
-dave
Sent from my iPhone
Jennifer Ziegler
360-902-0460
To: Camden, Allison [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: RE: Senate Anti-Tolling Amendment
Date: 3/6/2012 1:19:21 AM
Attachments:
If I read this correctly (and I haven’t had time to look at it in context) it would not allow tolling for
interstate tunnels or bridges as currently allowed under section 129, as well as any existing untolled
highway. If the overall bill also eliminates all of the other tolling pilot programs that would eliminate the
option of tolling to fund the CRC, or any use of tolling for preservation and reconstruction of interstates.
I-90 tolling would clearly not be allowed. It looks like it would allow new lanes to be built and tolled, so
it’s possible the I-405 project could be authorized and the SR 167 project seems to be explicitly included.
I’d hope and expect that current toll authorization for SR 520 under value pricing would be grandfathered
in.
I can look more closely if there’s still time tomorrow if you’d like.
-- Rob
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 5:20 PM
Subject: Senate Anti-Tolling Amendment
Senator Hutchison (R-TX) has introduced the tolling amendment below. I know we’ll oppose it, but can
you give me a couple of Washington-specific examples of negative repercussions? It would be helpful to
have some specificity to include in my e-mail to Murray and Cantwell staff (negative impacts on the CRC,
520, 405, 167, 90, etc.?).
Thanks,
Allison
SA 1568. Mrs. HUTCHISON submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the
bill S. 1813, to reauthorize Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of subtitle E of title I, add the following:
SEC. 15__. FREEDOM FROM TOLLS.
(a) In General.--Section 129 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Exception for Existing Highway Segments.-``(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), none of the funds made available to
carry out this title shall be used to approve or otherwise authorize the imposition of any toll on any
segment of highway located on the Federal-aid system--
``(A) the construction of which has been completed as of the date of enactment of this subsection;
``(B) that, as of the date of enactment of this subsection, is not tolled;
``(C) that was constructed with Federal assistance provided under this title; and
``(D) that is in actual operation as of the date of enactment of this subsection.
``(2) EXCEPTIONS.-``(A) NUMBER OF TOLL LANES.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any segment of highway on
the Federal-aid system described in that paragraph that, as of the date on which a toll is imposed on
the segment, will have the same number of nontoll lanes as were in existence prior to that date.
``(B) HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES.--A high-occupancy vehicle lane that is converted
to a toll lane shall not be subject to this subsection, and shall not be considered to be a nontoll lane
for purposes of determining whether a highway will have fewer nontoll lanes than prior to the date
of imposition of the toll, if-``(i) high-occupancy vehicles occupied by the number of passengers specified by the entity operating
the toll lane may use the toll lane without paying a toll, unless otherwise specified by the appropriate
county, town, municipal or other local government entity, or public toll road or transit authority; or
``(ii) each high-occupancy vehicle lane that was converted to a toll lane was constructed as a
temporary lane to be replaced by a toll lane under a plan approved by the appropriate county, town,
municipal or other local government entity, or public toll road or transit authority.''.
(b) Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program.--Section 1216(b)(2) of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 129 note; 112 Stat. 212) is amended by
striking ``3 facilities'' and inserting ``2 facilities''.
Allison Dane Camden
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
To: Fellows, Rob [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]
Cc:
Date: 3/6/2012 11:07:16 AM
Attachments:
Thanks, that is what I thought. It looks like Republicans are insisting that the Senate vote on the
Hutchison amendment. I don’t expect it to pass, but I’ll flag it for Murray and Cantwell staff so they know
we strongly oppose it.
-Allison
From: Fellows, Rob
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 12:19 AM
To: Camden, Allison; Stone, Craig
If I read this correctly (and I haven’t had time to look at it in context) it would not allow tolling for
interstate tunnels or bridges as currently allowed under section 129, as well as any existing untolled
highway. If the overall bill also eliminates all of the other tolling pilot programs that would eliminate the
option of tolling to fund the CRC, or any use of tolling for preservation and reconstruction of interstates.
I-90 tolling would clearly not be allowed. It looks like it would allow new lanes to be built and tolled, so
it’s possible the I-405 project could be authorized and the SR 167 project seems to be explicitly included.
I’d hope and expect that current toll authorization for SR 520 under value pricing would be grandfathered
in.
I can look more closely if there’s still time tomorrow if you’d like.
-- Rob
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 5:20 PM
Subject: Senate Anti-Tolling Amendment
Senator Hutchison (R-TX) has introduced the tolling amendment below. I know we’ll oppose it, but can
you give me a couple of Washington-specific examples of negative repercussions? It would be helpful to
have some specificity to include in my e-mail to Murray and Cantwell staff (negative impacts on the CRC,
520, 405, 167, 90, etc.?).
Thanks,
Allison
SA 1568. Mrs. HUTCHISON submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the
bill S. 1813, to reauthorize Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of subtitle E of title I, add the following:
SEC. 15__. FREEDOM FROM TOLLS.
(a) In General.--Section 129 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Exception for Existing Highway Segments.-``(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), none of the funds made available to
carry out this title shall be used to approve or otherwise authorize the imposition of any toll on any
segment of highway located on the Federal-aid system-``(A) the construction of which has been completed as of the date of enactment of this subsection;
``(B) that, as of the date of enactment of this subsection, is not tolled;
``(C) that was constructed with Federal assistance provided under this title; and
``(D) that is in actual operation as of the date of enactment of this subsection.
``(2) EXCEPTIONS.-``(A) NUMBER OF TOLL LANES.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any segment of highway on
the Federal-aid system described in that paragraph that, as of the date on which a toll is imposed on
the segment, will have the same number of nontoll lanes as were in existence prior to that date.
``(B) HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES.--A high-occupancy vehicle lane that is converted
to a toll lane shall not be subject to this subsection, and shall not be considered to be a nontoll lane
for purposes of determining whether a highway will have fewer nontoll lanes than prior to the date
of imposition of the toll, if-``(i) high-occupancy vehicles occupied by the number of passengers specified by the entity operating
the toll lane may use the toll lane without paying a toll, unless otherwise specified by the appropriate
county, town, municipal or other local government entity, or public toll road or transit authority; or
``(ii) each high-occupancy vehicle lane that was converted to a toll lane was constructed as a
temporary lane to be replaced by a toll lane under a plan approved by the appropriate county, town,
municipal or other local government entity, or public toll road or transit authority.''.
(b) Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program.--Section 1216(b)(2) of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 129 note; 112 Stat. 212) is amended by
striking ``3 facilities'' and inserting ``2 facilities''.
Allison Dane Camden
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
To: Meredith, Julie [email protected]
Cc: Lenzi, Jerry C [email protected]; Judd, Ron [email protected]; Stone, Craig
[email protected]; Amy Arnis [email protected]; Linda Healy [email protected]
Subject: Re: I90 tolling study
Date: 3/14/2012 12:01:52 PM
Attachments:
Jerry - Julie raises a great point about the need for close coordination and an even bigger question
about how we're going to deliver the EIS for the project - depending on my mood I could argue for
tolling, the 520 office and/or UPO to lead the effort - I'll suggest a gathering of email recipients to
discuss approach - Linda can you please set up soon? Thanks!
-Dave
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 14, 2012, at 11:55 AM, "Meredith, Julie" <[email protected]> wrote:
We would like to discuss the plan to implement the I90 tolling analysis and environmental studies
that are required as part of the supplemental budget. The 520 program will need to coordinate
with the appropriate staff with regards to the effort as it relates to the schedule of delivery for the
remainder of the 520 program.
Our team is being asked to provide design/cn schedules and financial aging for the west side work.
In order for us to provide the best information possible, we need to have a clear understanding of
the goals I90 effort.
What can we do to help facilitate this discussion?
Julie Meredith, PE
SR 520 Program Director
SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program
206-770-3568 direct | 206-770-3500 main
600 Stewart Street, Suite 520 | Seattle, WA 98101
Visit us at our Web site: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr520bridge/
To: Fellows, Rob [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Suchan, Stan
[email protected]; Michaud, Patricia [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: Time Sensitive Murray Request: Tolling I-90
Date: 3/29/2012 2:25:51 PM
Attachments:
Good afternoon –
Senator Murray’s office called with some questions about future I-90 tolling. The Senator is meeting with
the Washington Roundtable on Monday and they expect I-90 tolling questions to come up. I’ve shared
with them the 2009 FHWA letter that directed us to the VPPP and the authority to toll under 23 U.S.C.
166 HOV Facilities, but can you please help me with the following questions?
·
·
·
·
·
Has the legislature taken any recent action on tolling I-90? (I told them they’ve directed us to
study it. Is there any other direction they’ve given us? I thought I read somewhere that they
funded environmental work?)
Is any federal action necessary to allow us to toll I-90? (They have the FHWA letter that outlines
our options and that we’d have to work with FHWA for approval. Is there anything else they
should know?)
Do we have a plan for when tolling might happen? (When do we have to report back to the
legislature?)
Would putting tolls on I-90 lower the tolls on SR 520?
What are the latest diversion rates we’ve seen on SR 520? How do those line up with the
diversion we planned for?
If at all possible I’d like to get them answers to these questions by COB today. I hope you’re enjoying
this lovely weather. ;)
Thank you!
-Allison
Allison Dane Camden
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
From: Michaud, Patricia [email protected]
To: Camden, Allison [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]; Stone, Craig
[email protected]; Suchan, Stan [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: RE: Time Sensitive Murray Request: Tolling I-90
Date: 3/29/2012 2:46:47 PM
Attachments:
Hi Allison,
I am gathering the information and will get back to you as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Patty
Patricia Michaud
WSDOT Communications
206-716-1133 (w)
206-707-1448 (c)
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:26 PM
To: Fellows, Rob; Stone, Craig; Suchan, Stan; Michaud, Patricia
Importance: High
Good afternoon –
Senator Murray ’s office called with some questions about future I-90 tolling. The Senator is meeting
with the Washington Roundtable on Monday and they expect I-90 tolling questions to come up. I ’ve
shared with them the 2009 FHWA letter that directed us to the VPPP and the authority to toll under 23
U.S.C. 166 HOV Facilities, but can you please help me with the following questions?
·
·
·
·
·
Has the legislature taken any recent action on tolling I-90? (I told them they ’ve directed us to
study it. Is there any other direction they ’ve given us? I thought I read somewhere that they
Is any federal action necessary to allow us to toll I-90? (They have the FHWA letter that
outlines our options and that we ’d have to work with FHWA for approval. Is there anything else
they should know?)
legislature?)
What are the latest diversion rates we ’ve seen on SR 520? How do those line up with the
If at all possible I ’d like to get them answers to these questions by COB today. I hope you ’re enjoying
Thank you!
-Allison
Allison Dane Camden
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
To: Michaud, Patricia [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]; Stone, Craig
Cc:
Date: 3/29/2012 2:50:57 PM
Attachments:
Thanks Patty! I did find the February traffic update you shared with me earlier this month that included
the diversion rates we ’re seeing. I sent that to her staff, but if we have an updated document that
would be good to send as well (though since March isn ’t quite over I would understand if it hasn ’t been
updated yet J ).
-Allison
From: Michaud, Patricia
To: Camden, Allison; Fellows, Rob; Stone, Craig; Suchan, Stan
Hi Allison,
Thank you,
Patty
Patricia Michaud
206-716-1133 (w)
206-707-1448 (c)
Importance: High
Good afternoon –
·
·
·
·
·
they should know?)
legislature?)
Thank you!
-Allison
Allison Dane Camden
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
To: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]; Charlebois, Jennifer
[email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: FW: Time Sensitive Murray Request: Tolling I-90
Date: 3/29/2012 3:37:08 PM
Attachments:
I have taken a hit at these but need your review (answers bolded). I suggest we include the one pager
summary to provide the detail to these answers.
·
The 2012 Legislature provided WSDOT $1.5 million to perform a comprehensive study of I-90 tolling,
including environmental work and public outreach .
·
they should know?)
Do we mention that we ’d pursue toll approval under value pricing program?
·
legislature?)
We are currently reviewing four different toll options for I-90. Our current schedule assumes an EIS
process with the toll system ready mid to late 2016, depending on which option is chosen. This
schedule could be shortened by 1.5 years if an EA is sufficient. The budget proviso does not specify a
date to report back to the legislature, however, we will provide a status report for the 2013 legislature.
·
We do not know as we have not yet conducted traffic modeling and analysis. This will be part of our
work efforts for this biennium.
·
Volume on the SR 520 bridge is 30 to 40 percent below pre-tolling levels. The is less than our forecast
which was 48 percent drop in SR 520 traffic for the first year of tolling.
I-90 volumes have increased 5-10 percent and we ’re seeing an average of a 2 minute increase in peak
travel time.
Traffic and revenues are meeting expectations
·
February traffic was 19 percent higher than our original forecast
·
February revenue was 7 percent higher than our original forecast
Exceeding operational goals
·
We exceeded our goal of setting up 100,000 new accounts by opening day and started SR 520
tolling with 160,000 new Good To Go! accounts
·
We are also exceeding expectations for the number of trips paid using Good To Go! accounts.
Approximately 79 percent of all February toll trips were made by Good To Go! account holders.
We forecasted 72 percent during the first year of tolling
Importance: High
Good afternoon –
·
·
·
·
·
they should know?)
legislature?)
Thank you!
-Allison
Allison Dane Camden
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
To: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; Fellows, Rob
[email protected]
Cc:
Date: 3/29/2012 5:32:56 PM
Attachments:
Updated version that includes comments from Rob. Again, am assuming we ’d send this with the I-90 one
pager.
To: Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob; Charlebois, Jennifer; Stone, Craig
Importance: High
I have taken a hit at these but need your review (answers bolded). I suggest we include the one pager
summary to provide the detail to these answers.
·
The 201 1 Legislature provided WSDOT $1.5 million to study tolling on I-90 . During the 2012 legislative
session, they expanded the scope to includ e environmental work and public outreach .
·
they should know?)
WSDOT has not yet applied for federal toll authority. FHWA has recommended that WSDOT would be
eligible for toll authority on I-90 under the value pricing program.
·
legislature?)
We are currently reviewing four different toll options for I-90. Our current schedule assumes an EIS
process with the toll system ready mid to late 2016, depending on which option is chosen. This
schedule could be shortened by 1.5 years if an EA is sufficient. The budget proviso does not specify a
date to report back to the legislature, however, we will provide a status report for the 2013 legislature.
·
We do not know the effects of I-90 tolling on SR 520 tolls as we have not yet conducted traffic
modeling and analysis. This will be part of our work efforts for this biennium. This is a future policy
decision but it would likely result in a larger funding gap for the SR 520 program.
·
Volume on the SR 520 bridge is 30 to 40 percent below pre-tolling levels. The is less than our forecast
which was 48 percent drop in SR 520 traffic for the first year of tolling.
travel time.
·
·
·
·
Importance: High
Good afternoon –
·
·
·
·
·
they should know?)
legislature?)
Thank you!
-Allison
Allison Dane Camden
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
To: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; Fellows, Rob
[email protected]
Cc:
Date: 3/29/2012 6:06:10 PM
Attachments: 20130329MurrayBrief.docx
I need to say goodbye to Sandy so am headed out. This is the latest draft and I ’m also printing this up and
taping to Craig ’s door. If you review it tonight I can send to Allison when I get home later this evening.
Thanks, Patty
Has the legislature taken any recent action on tolling I-90? (I told them they ’ve directed us to study it.
Is there any other direction they ’ve given us? I thought I read somewhere that they funded
environmental work?)
The 2011 Legislature provided WSDOT $1.5 million to study tolling on I-90. During the 2012 legislative
session, they expanded the scope to include environmental work and public outreach.
Is any federal action necessary to allow us to toll I-90? (They have the FHWA letter that outlines our
options and that we ’d have to work with FHWA for approval. Is there anything else they should
know?)
WSDOT has not yet applied for federal toll authority. FHWA has recommended that WSDOT would be
eligible for toll authority on I-90 under the Value Pricing Program.
legislature?)
Our current schedule assumes an EIS process with the toll system ready mid to late 2016, depending on
which option is chosen (four options listed below). This schedule could be shortened by 1.5 years if an EA
is sufficient. The budget proviso does not specify a date to report back to the legislature, however, we
will provide a status report for the 2013 legislature.
We are currently reviewing four different toll options for I-90:
·
Single HOT lane to SR 900/Issaquah with ATM/Smarter Highways
·
Dual HOT lane between I-5 and I-405, single HOT lane to Issaquah with ATM/Smarter
Highways
·
Full tolling on bridge with ATM/Smarter Highways
·
Hybrid full tolling plus single HOT lane I-5 to SR 900/Issaquah with ATM/Smarter Highways
We do not know the effects of I-90 tolling on SR 520 tolls as we have not yet conducted traffic modeling
and analysis. This will be part of our work efforts for this biennium. This is a future policy decision but it
would likely result in a larger funding gap for the SR 520 program.
What are the latest diversion rates we ’ve seen on SR 520? How do those line up with the diversion we
planned for?
Our diversion and traffic volumes are on track with our expectations. Volume on the SR 520 bridge is 30
to 40 percent below pre-tolling levels. This is less than our forecast which was 48 percent drop in SR 520
traffic for the first year of tolling.
travel time. Other items of note:
·
·
·
·
From:
Michaud, Patricia [email protected]
To:
Camden, Allison [email protected]; Fellows, Rob
[email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Suchan, Stan
[email protected]
Cc:
Subject:
RE: Time Sensitive Murray Request: Tolling I-90
Date:
3/29/2012 6:20:35 PM
Attachments: 20130329MurrayBrief_001.docx
-----------------------------------------------------------Hi Allison,
Below are the answers to your questions - I also attached a word doc version.
The traffic diversion numbers haven t really changed but I included exciting
new numbers for February traffic as compared to our forecast.
Thanks,
Patty
<<20130329MurrayBrief.docx>>
Has the legislature taken any recent action on tolling I-90? (I told them they
ve directed us to study it. Is there any other direction they ve given us? I
thought I read somewhere that they funded environmental work?)
The 2011 Legislature provided WSDOT $1.5 million to study tolling on I-90.
During the 2012 legislative session, they expanded the scope to include
environmental work and public outreach.
Is any federal action necessary to allow us to toll I-90? (They have the FHWA
letter that outlines our options and that we d have to work with FHWA for
approval. Is there anything else they should know?)
WSDOT has not yet applied for federal toll authority. FHWA has recommended that
WSDOT would be eligible for toll authority on I-90 under the Value Pricing
Program.
Do we have a plan for when tolling might happen?
back to the legislature?)
(When do we have to report
Our current schedule assumes an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) process with
the toll system ready mid to late 2016, depending on which option is chosen
(four options listed below). This schedule could be shortened by 1.5 years if
an Environment Assessment (EA) is sufficient. The budget proviso does not
specify a date to report back to the legislature, however, we will provide a
status report for the 2013 legislature.
* Single HOT lane to SR 900/Issaquah with ATM/Smarter Highways
* Dual HOT lane between I-5 and I-405, single HOT lane to Issaquah with
ATM/Smarter Highways
* Full tolling on bridge with ATM/Smarter Highways
* Hybrid full tolling plus single HOT lane I-5 to SR 900/Issaquah with
ATM/Smarter Highways
We do not know the effects of I-90 tolling on SR 520 tolls as we have not yet
conducted traffic modeling and analysis. This will be part of our work efforts
for this biennium. This is a future policy decision but it would likely result
in a larger funding gap for the SR 520 program.
What are the latest diversion rates we ve seen on SR 520?
up with the diversion we planned for?
How do those line
Our diversion and traffic volumes are on track with our expectations. Volume on
the SR 520 bridge is 30 to 40 percent below pre-tolling levels. This is better
than our forecast. We planned a 48 percent drop in SR 520 traffic during the
first year of tolling.
I-90 volumes have increased 5-10 percent and we re seeing an average of a 2
minute increase in peak travel time. Other items of note:
* February traffic was 19 percent higher than our original forecast
* February revenue was 7 percent higher than our original forecast
* We exceeded our goal of setting up 100,000 new accounts by opening day and
started SR 520 tolling with 160,000 new Good To Go! accounts
* We are also exceeding expectations for the number of trips paid using Good To
Go! accounts. Approximately 79 percent of all February toll trips were made by
Good To Go! account holders. We forecasted 72 percent during the first year of
tolling
To: Michaud, Patricia; Fellows, Rob; Stone, Craig; Suchan, Stan
Thanks Patty! I did find the February traffic update
earlier this month that included the diversion rates
that to her staff, but if we have an updated document
send as well (though since March isn t quite over I
hasn t been updated yet :-) ).
you shared with me
we re seeing. I sent
that would be good to
would understand if it
-Allison
Hi Allison,
Thank you,
Patty
Patricia Michaud
206-716-1133 (w)
206-707-1448 (c)
Importance: High
Good afternoon
Senator Murray s office called with some questions about future I-90 tolling.
The Senator is meeting with the Washington Roundtable on Monday and they expect
I-90 tolling questions to come up. I ve shared with them the 2009 FHWA letter
that directed us to the VPPP and the authority to toll under 23 U.S.C. 166 HOV
Facilities, but can you please help me with the following questions?
* Has the legislature taken any recent action on tolling I-90? (I told them
they ve directed us to study it. Is there any other direction they ve given
us? I thought I read somewhere that they funded environmental work?)
* Is any federal action necessary to allow us to toll I-90? (They have the FHWA
letter that outlines our options and that we d have to work with FHWA for
approval. Is there anything else they should know?)
* Do we have a plan for when tolling might happen? (When do we have to report
back to the legislature?)
* Would putting tolls on I-90 lower the tolls on SR 520?
* What are the latest diversion rates we ve seen on SR 520? How do those line
up with the diversion we planned for?
If at all possible I d like to get them answers to these questions by COB
today. I hope you re enjoying this lovely weather. ;)
Thank you!
-Allison
Allison Dane Camden
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
To: Michaud, Patricia [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]; Stone, Craig
Cc: Rubstello, Patty [email protected]
Subject: Re: Time Sensitive Murray Request: Tolling I-90
Date: 3/29/2012 7:55:30 PM
Attachments:
Wonderful, thank you!
-Allison
Cc: Rubstello, Patty
Sent: Thu Mar 29 18:20:35 2012
Hi Allison,
Below are the answers to your questions - I also attached a word doc version. The traffic diversion
numbers haven’t really changed but I included exciting new numbers for February traffic as
compared to our forecast.
Thanks,
Patty
<<20130329MurrayBrief.docx>>
Has the legislature taken any recent action on tolling I-90? (I told them they’ve directed us to
study it. Is there any other direction they’ve given us? I thought I read somewhere that they
The 2011 Legislature provided WSDOT $1.5 million to study tolling on I-90. During the 2012
legislative session, they expanded the scope to include environmental work and public outreach.
Is any federal action necessary to allow us to toll I-90? (They have the FHWA letter that outlines
our options and that we’d have to work with FHWA for approval. Is there anything else they
should know?)
WSDOT has not yet applied for federal toll authority. FHWA has recommended that WSDOT would
be eligible for toll authority on I-90 under the Value Pricing Program.
legislature?)
Our current schedule assumes an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) process with the toll
system ready mid to late 2016, depending on which option is chosen (four options listed below).
This schedule could be shortened by 1.5 years if an Environment Assessment (EA) is sufficient. The
budget proviso does not specify a date to report back to the legislature, however, we will provide
a status report for the 2013 legislature.
·
Single HOT lane to SR 900/Issaquah with ATM/Smarter Highways
·
Dual HOT lane between I-5 and I-405, single HOT lane to Issaquah with ATM/Smarter
Highways
·
Full tolling on bridge with ATM/Smarter Highways
·
Hybrid full tolling plus single HOT lane I-5 to SR 900/Issaquah with ATM/Smarter
Highways
We do not know the effects of I-90 tolling on SR 520 tolls as we have not yet conducted traffic
modeling and analysis. This will be part of our work efforts for this biennium. This is a future
policy decision but it would likely result in a larger funding gap for the SR 520 program.
What are the latest diversion rates we’ve seen on SR 520? How do those line up with the
Our diversion and traffic volumes are on track with our expectations. Volume on the SR 520 bridge
is 30 to 40 percent below pre-tolling levels. This is better than our forecast. We planned a 48
percent drop in SR 520 traffic during the first year of tolling.
I-90 volumes have increased 5-10 percent and we’re seeing an average of a 2 minute increase in
peak travel time. Other items of note:
·
·
·
We exceeded our goal of setting up 100,000 new accounts by opening day and started
SR 520 tolling with 160,000 new Good To Go! accounts
·
We are also exceeding expectations for the number of trips paid using Good To Go!
accounts. Approximately 79 percent of all February toll trips were made by Good To Go! account
holders. We forecasted 72 percent during the first year of tolling
To: Michaud, Patricia; Fellows, Rob; Stone, Craig; Suchan, Stan
Thanks Patty! I did find the February traffic update you shared with me earlier this month that
included the diversion rates we’re seeing. I sent that to her staff, but if we have an updated
document that would be good to send as well (though since March isn’t quite over I would
understand if it hasn’t been updated yet J ).
-Allison
Hi Allison,
Thank you,
Patty
Patricia Michaud
206-716-1133 (w)
206-707-1448 (c)
Importance: High
Good afternoon –
Senator Murray’s office called with some questions about future I-90 tolling. The Senator is
meeting with the Washington Roundtable on Monday and they expect I-90 tolling questions to
come up. I’ve shared with them the 2009 FHWA letter that directed us to the VPPP and the
authority to toll under 23 U.S.C. 166 HOV Facilities, but can you please help me with the following
questions?
·
Has the legislature taken any recent action on tolling I-90? (I told them they’ve directed
us to study it. Is there any other direction they’ve given us? I thought I read somewhere that they
·
outlines our options and that we’d have to work with FHWA for approval. Is there anything else
they should know?)
·
Do we have a plan for when tolling might happen? (When do we have to report back to
the legislature?)
·
·
What are the latest diversion rates we’ve seen on SR 520? How do those line up with
the diversion we planned for?
If at all possible I’d like to get them answers to these questions by COB today. I hope you’re
enjoying this lovely weather. ;)
Thank you!
-Allison
Allison Dane Camden
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
To: Hammond; Paula
Cc: Rubstello; Patty; Pierce; Steve; Dye; Dave; Camden; Allison
Subject: RE: Report to Congress Draft Follow Up
Date: 4/14/2012 3:20:18 AM
Attachments:
Paula – Would you be willing to approve a quote in support of the federal value pricing programs? I
recommend we stay very supportive and visible of the federal program as it gives us the most flexibility
under our toll program as we incrementally improve our highway system, including our need for a federal
program that we can consider I-90 tolling under. As Allison has been reporting there is a bit of pushing
and pulling in the federal reauthorization debate. In FHWA’s report to congress, we can show our
support.
The question being asked is:
Has your agency benefitted from FHWA’s Tolling and Pricing Programs (i.e., the Value Pricing
Pilot Program, Express Lanes Demonstration Program, Urban Partnership Agreements, congestion
Reduction Demonstrations, etc.)? If so, please describe why and how.
A quote to be included could be:
“The federal tolling programs have enabled us invest in innovative projects that help us operate our
highways more efficiently – a critical objective for our Moving Washington strategy. Without it,
some of these projects would have been delayed – or might not have happened at all. Our state’s first
High Occupancy Toll lanes, funded by the Value Pricing Pilot Program, have reduced congestion on
the SR 167 every year since opening in 2008. Our newly tolled SR 520 bridge, funded by the Urban
Partnership Agreement, is free flow for the first time in decades. These are the kind of sustainable
benefits that bring value – even in tough economic times.”
-
Paula Hammond, Secretary of
Transportation
Washington State Department of
Transportation
Craig
From: Rubstello, Patty
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:04 AM
To: Stone, Craig; Michaud, Patricia
Subject: FW: Report to Congress Draft Follow Up
Was is the likelihood we could get a quote from Paula on the Value Pricing Program? If not Paula, I was
think Craig, you could offer one. FHWA is producing a document on the value of the various grant
programs they have for pricing.
I need to know if we can do this ASAP and I’m assuming FHWA wants the quote ASAP as well.
Patty Rubstello, PE
Toll Systems Development & Engineering
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 8:01 AM
To: Rubstello, Patty
Subject: Report to Congress Draft Follow Up
Hi Patty,
I thought I would follow up regarding a request made by one of our consultants at the TRB peer
exchange. Myron asked for comments/lessons learned/success stories from pricing. Patty you had
mentioned that you intended to obtain a quote from Paula Hammond. We are in the process of finalizing
our draft R to C document and were wondering If you would still be able to provide a quote from yourself
or Paula Hammond.
Angela Fogle Jacobs, AICP
Value Pricing Pilot Program Manager
FHWA-HOTM-1, Room E86-204
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
(202) 366-0076 (phone)
(202) 366-3225 (fax)
From: Hanson, Allison [email protected]
To: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Arnold, Paul [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty
[email protected]
Cc: Angove, Angela [email protected]
Subject: updated I-90 enviro doc strategy paper
Date: 5/8/2012 9:57:02 AM
Attachments: EOC3.docx
AllI updated the strategy paper based on our conversationyesterday afternoon. Let me know if you have
any edits/questions when youreview this latest draft. I talked to Megan this morning and so she is up
tospeed on the approach. I will hold on making contact with FHWA until I hearback from Craig, I did give
Deborah a heads-up that we will be working onscheduling a FHWA staff/legal conversation possibly
within the next couple ofweeks.
Thanks, Allison
Cc: Larsen, Chad [email protected]
Subject: Executive Toll Committee Draft Agenda
Date: 6/12/2012 1:00:55 PM
Attachments:
Here is what I heard today as the agenda with the ETC next Wednesday.
Tolling Agreements
·
I-405
·
I-90
·
CRC
I-90 Status
·
Work Program (Schedule & Budget)
·
Environmental Strategy
·
Committee Structures???
Current Operations Numbers
·
SR 520 (traffic, revenue, % paid by transaction type)
·
TNB (traffic, revenue, % paid by transaction type)
o Cashless Study?
Anything else? I ’ll put together everything for the first two items. Who will cover the operations
numbers, Pete?
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
RE: Executive Toll Committee Draft Agenda
Date:
6/12/2012 2:49:45 PM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------Looks like a good agenda.
-- Rob
-----Original Message----From: Stone, Craig
Sent: Tue 6/12/2012 2:16 PM
To: Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob; Briglia, Pete; Henry, Kim
Cc: Larsen, Chad
Subject: RE: Executive Toll Committee Draft Agenda
Here is the draft Exec Toll Comm agenda for June 20th. About 20 minutes per
topic is what I expect (the last two are just quick info items). If you have
additions or comments please advise. We will just have held the CRC Oversight
committee meeting the day before, and we do not have toll policy team items yet
to bring to them. There is an outside chance of touching on the AWV ACTT
upcoming June 28th meeting but I do not think we will spend this time on it.
Craig
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 1:01 PM
To: Stone, Craig
Cc: Larsen, Chad
I-405 Traffic & Revenue
·
Leg leadership debrief
·
Update on T&R work efforts
Federal Tolling Agreements
[Craig & Kim]
[Craig & Patty]
·
I-405
·
I-90
·
CRC
I-90 Status
Patty]
[Craig &
·
·
·
Committee Structures
·
Statewide T&R consultant procurement
Current Toll Operations Numbers
[Craig & Pete]
·
·
o
Cashless Study
·
Adjudication
Tribal Exemptions (tentative)
Roadway Collection System contract
[Steve R]
[Craig & Patty]
Anything else? I'll put together everything for the first two items.
cover the operations numbers, Pete?
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
Who will
From: Briglia, Pete [email protected]
Cc:
Date: 6/12/2012 4:01:32 PM
Attachments:
Sorry but my wife ’s surgery has been rescheduled for June 20 th . The insurance company is taking the
full amount of time that they are allowed for pre-approval.
So I won ’t be able to participate in this.
Pete
From: Stone, Craig
Cc: Larsen, Chad
Here is the draft Exec Toll Comm agenda for June 20 th . About 20 minutes per topic is what I expect
(the last two are just quick info items). If you have additions or comments please advise. We will just
have held the CRC Oversight committee meeting the day before, and we do not have toll policy team
items yet to bring to them. There is an outside chance of touching on the AWV ACTT upcoming June 28
th meeting but I do not think we will spend this time on it.
Craig
To: Stone, Craig
Cc: Larsen, Chad
·
·
Update on T &R work efforts
·
I-405
·
I-90
·
CRC
I-90 Status
·
[Craig & Kim]
[Craig & Patty]
[Craig & Patty]
·
·
·
Statewide T &R consultant procurement
[Craig & Pete]
·
·
o Cashless Study
·
Adjudication
[Steve R]
[Craig & Patty]
numbers, Pete?
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
To: Rubstello; Patty; Fellows; Rob; Briglia; Pete; Henry; Kim
Cc: Larsen; Chad
Date: 6/12/2012 9:16:13 PM
Attachments:
Craig
To: Stone, Craig
Cc: Larsen, Chad
·
·
[Craig & Kim]
·
I-405
·
I-90
·
CRC
I-90 Status
·
·
·
·
[Craig & Patty]
[Craig & Patty]
[Craig & Pete]
·
·
o Cashless Study
·
Adjudication
[Steve R]
[Craig & Patty]
numbers, Pete?
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
To: Briglia; Pete
Cc:
Subject: Re: Executive Toll Committee Draft Agenda
Date: 6/13/2012 1:32:18 AM
Attachments:
Understood.
From : Briglia, Pete
To : Stone, Craig
Sent : Tue Jun 12 16:01:32 2012
Subject : RE: Executive Toll Committee Draft Agenda
Sorry but my wife ’s surgery has been rescheduled for June 20 th . The insurance company is taking the
full amount of time that they are allowed for pre-approval.
So I won ’t be able to participate in this.
Pete
From: Stone, Craig
Cc: Larsen, Chad
Craig
To: Stone, Craig
Cc: Larsen, Chad
·
·
[Craig & Kim]
·
I-405
·
I-90
·
CRC
I-90 Status
·
·
·
·
[Craig & Patty]
[Craig & Patty]
[Craig & Pete]
·
·
o Cashless Study
·
Adjudication
[Steve R]
[Craig & Patty]
numbers, Pete?
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
From:
Merkens, Todd [email protected]
To:
Stone, Craig [email protected]; Francis, Carley
[email protected]; Boyd, Nancy [email protected]; Strickler,
Kris [email protected]; [email protected]; Rubstello,
Patty [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]
Cc:
Subject:
RE: FW: CRC Federal Toll Agreement
Date:
6/18/2012 9:45:30 AM
Attachments: WSDOT Expression of Interest for I-90.pdf; I-90 Tolling Layout
v5.pdf; Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf; Final Signed.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------Good morning,
To follow up from this morning s call on FHWA toll agreements, here are
several documents.
The first two documents comprise the initial I-90 expression of interest. The
third document is the FHWA reply to the I-90 expression of interest, it also
contains a good summary of the available FHWA programs to authorize tolling
(last 5 pages). The last document is the SR 99 toll agreement.
<<WSDOT Expression of Interest for I-90.pdf>> <<I-90 Tolling Layout v5.pdf>>
<<Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf>>
<<Final Signed.pdf>>
Thanks,
Todd S. Merkens
Tolling Engineer
WSDOT
Office: (206) 716-1151
Cell: (206) 799-7030
E-mail: [email protected]
-----Original Appointment----From: Rubstello, Patty On Behalf Of Stone, Craig
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 3:59 PM
To: Stone, Craig; Merkens, Todd; 'Francis, Carley'; Boyd, Nancy; 'Strickler,
Kris'; '[email protected]'; Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob
Subject: FW: CRC Federal Toll Agreement
When: Monday, June 18, 2012 8:30 AM-10:00 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
Canada).
Where: 206-440-4005/360-709-8068 pin 1088010
I d like you to participate.
Patty
-----Original Appointment----From: Stone, Craig
To: Stone, Craig;
Francis, Carley ; Boyd, Nancy;
Strickler, Kris ;
[email protected] ; Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob
Subject: CRC Federal Toll Agreement
When: Monday, June 18, 2012 8:30 AM-10:00 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
Canada).
Where: 206-440-4005/360-709-8068 pin 1088010
When: Monday, June 18, 2012 8:30 AM-10:00 AM (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
Canada).
Where: 206-440-4005/360-709-8068 pin 1088010
Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.
+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+
Agenda topics:
* Toll Division experiences
* CRC specific coordination
* Tasks
* Staffing
To: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Hall, Jeff (Consultant) [email protected]
Cc: Slack, Terri (Consultant) [email protected]; Larsen, Chad [email protected]
Date: 6/18/2012 3:13:59 PM
Attachments:
Sure Jeff can do that – he ’s a consultant so there is nothing he can ’t or won ’t do.
Seriously, I think he has access to more of the numbers than I do. I will get with him.
Pete
From: Stone, Craig
To: Hall, Jeff (Consultant); Briglia, Pete
Cc: Slack, Terri (Consultant); Larsen, Chad
Subject: FW: Executive Toll Committee Draft Agenda
Pete – Since you cannot make Wednesday ’s meeting, can Jeff provide the support by researching the
information needed so we can present the operations performance numbers below, as well as attend on
the behalf of toll operations? Can you work together in prep for this session. I expect we will have
about 20 minutes to go through the numbers, what we are doing to refine procedures as we look to
optimize performance.
I will not be back in the office, but available by phone to discuss. A prep call would be good. I will have
plenty of car time traveling to and from Vancouver tomorrow with Terri.
Chad – can you set up some time with all of us.
Craig
From: Stone, Craig
Cc: Larsen, Chad
Craig
To: Stone, Craig
Cc: Larsen, Chad
·
·
[Craig & Kim]
·
I-405
·
I-90
·
CRC
I-90 Status
·
·
·
·
[Craig & Patty]
[Craig & Patty]
[Craig & Pete]
·
·
o Cashless Study
·
Adjudication
[Steve R]
[Craig & Patty]
numbers, Pete?
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
From: Larsen, Chad [email protected]
To: Briglia, Pete [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Hall, Jeff (Consultant)
[email protected]
Cc: Slack, Terri (Consultant) [email protected]
Date: 6/18/2012 3:19:08 PM
Attachments:
I ’ll set some time up for 8a. It ’s not ideal, but we need to get it to happen before you hit the dead zone.
Could be that we ’ll need to touch base again once you finally land in Vancouver.
From: Briglia, Pete
To: Stone, Craig; Hall, Jeff (Consultant)
Sure Jeff can do that – he ’s a consultant so there is nothing he can ’t or won ’t do.
Seriously, I think he has access to more of the numbers than I do. I will get with him.
Pete
From: Stone, Craig
To: Hall, Jeff (Consultant); Briglia, Pete
Craig
From: Stone, Craig
Cc: Larsen, Chad
Craig
To: Stone, Craig
Cc: Larsen, Chad
·
·
[Craig & Kim]
·
I-405
·
I-90
·
CRC
I-90 Status
·
·
·
·
[Craig & Patty]
[Craig & Patty]
[Craig & Pete]
·
·
o Cashless Study
·
Adjudication
[Steve R]
[Craig & Patty]
numbers, Pete?
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
To: Consultant Hall; Jeff (Consultant); Briglia; Pete ([email protected])
Cc: Consultant Slack; Terri (Consultant) ([email protected]); Chad Larsen
([email protected])
Date: 6/18/2012 10:05:00 PM
Attachments:
Craig
From: Stone, Craig
Cc: Larsen, Chad
Craig
To: Stone, Craig
Cc: Larsen, Chad
·
·
[Craig & Kim]
[Craig & Patty]
·
·
·
I-90 Status
·
·
·
·
I-405
I-90
CRC
[Craig & Patty]
[Craig & Pete]
·
·
o Cashless Study
·
Adjudication
[Steve R]
[Craig & Patty]
numbers, Pete?
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
From: Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]
To: Camden, Allison [email protected]
Cc: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected]
Subject: RE: Tolling Questions for Rep. Smith's Office
Date: 6/21/2012 6:25:04 AM
Attachments: CongressmanSmith_tolling_062112.docx
Hi Allison,
Here’s our draft response – I’d like to get Craig and Patty’s final review before you use this tomorrow.
We also have a map of the proposed regional toll system, which I will send along shortly. –Colleen
1)
How do you see I-90 tolling being rolled out? What is the timeline? Next steps?
As part of the overall efforts to fund the SR 520 bridge and ease congestion in the cross-lake corridor, the
520 Toll Implementation Committee (Ford, Hammond, Drewel) engaged the public in a discussion
focused on financing SR 520 improvements through toll scenarios on both the 520 and I-90 bridges. The
520 TIC reviewed the form that tolling may take, traffic diversion, tolling and traffic management
technology, and partnership opportunities. Legislation instructed the Tolling Implementation Committee
to survey citizens about the project, and to submit a final report to the Governor and Legislature by
January 2009.
While WSDOT does not yet have approval to toll I-90, the 2011 Legislature provided WSDOT $1.5 million
to study tolling I-90. During the 2012 legislative session, the legislature expanded the scope to include
environmental work and public outreach to create the Comprehensive Tolling Study and Environmental
Review Project.
Through ESSB 2190, the legislature directed WSDOT to “ $1,500,000 of the motor vehicle account--federal
appropriation is provided solely for the I-90 Comprehensive Tolling Study and Environmental Review
project (100067T). The department shall undertake a comprehensive environmental review of tolling
Interstate 90 between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of both managing traffic and
providing funding for construction of the unfunded state route number 520 from Interstate 5 to Medina
project. The environmental review must include significant outreach to potentially affected communities.
The department may consider traffic management options that extend as far east as Issaquah. ”
The NEPA environmental analysis (EA) is just getting started reviewing the environmental impacts of
tolling I-90 and analyzing traffic and tolling scenarios. Informal outreach with area leaders is starting
now, with the formal public process beginning in January 2013, and the EA being conducted from August
2012 to October of 2013.
2)
What does the stakeholder process for I-90 tolling look like?
As part of the EA, WSDOT is drafting a public involvement plan (PIP), which will include a public comment
period, and hosting public meetings focused on the project scoping, environmental analyses and results,
as well as a public hearing. WSDOT will survey the public to gauge public awareness and acceptance for
tolling I-90, and use these results to inform the public education and outreach efforts. WSDOT staff will
make presentations at community organizations and city council meetings, host a project website, and
send out regular newsletters to keep people informed of project status.
We are still putting the PIP together but expect to create an executive advisory group, similar to what we
had in place for I-405 and SR 520, which would include a review of the issues by local legislators and city
and county leaders.
3)
What are the future (10-20 year) prospects for tolling/tolling studies on I-5 in Seattle, I-405
and Hwy 167? (how wide do you see the tolling network growing?)
By statute, the rate and extent of new tolling is determined by the state Legislature. It's hard to
predict how quickly new tolling will be adopted and where.
That said, WSDOT has been on record through its Moving Washington program favoring conversion of
HOV lanes to express toll lane facilities to remedy HOV lane speed and reliability performance that does
not meet state or federal standards. The Puget Sound Regional Council has also adopted a regional
transportation plan endorsing express toll lanes by 2030, which calls for full tolling of all limited access
highways by 2040. Tolling is in place on the SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge, planned for the SR 99 deep
bore tunnel, and under consideration for the I-5 Columbia River Crossing, I-90 across Lake Washington,
and for long-planned corridor extensions to SR 509 and SR 167. The Legislature has funded toll feasibility
studies or project development funds for all of these efforts.
Important elements of mega-projects that would originally have been funded through a regional tax
measure (the Regional Transportation Improvement District, or RTID) remain unfunded, as are other
needs such as pavement replacement for I-5. Tolls will likely be part of any significant improvement
programs, especially if federal transportation funding remains limited and new state taxes are not
forthcoming.
WSDOT is currently operating a HOT lane pilot project on SR 167 and is in active development of a duallane express toll facility on the north segment of I-405. WSDOT and I-405 stakeholders hope to expand
express toll lanes to cover the entire corridor including widening between Renton and Bellevue and a
direct ramp connection to the existing SR 167 HOT lanes to provide a continuous 40+ mile I-405/SR 167
express toll lane corridor. This project has been given toll authority by the Legislature subject to
legislative acceptance of a new traffic and revenue analysis by the Washington State Transportation
Commission. This approval is expected prior to Feb. 2013.
Colleen Gants
WSDOT Toll Division
Communications & External Affairs
206-465-2311 (cell)
206-716-1150 (desk)
[email protected]
On Jun 15, 2012, at 5:35 PM, "Michaud, Patricia " < [email protected] > wrote:
Thanks Allison,
Colleen Gants just joined our team. She’s leading external relations and I-90 communications
(among other things) for the Toll Division. I’ve asked her to follow-up with you.
-Patty
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 2:33 PM
To: Michaud, Patricia
Hi Patty –
After I hit send on my e-mail to you I came across the attached Q &A document you guys put
together for Murray’s office in March. The answers there seem to take care of question 1 from
Smith’s staff. Assuming all that info is still up-to-date, I just need info on what the stakeholder
process for I-90 looks like and the general messaging for our future tolling plans for I-5, I-405 and
SR 167.
Thanks!
-Allison
Subject: Tolling Questions for Rep. Smith's Office
Hi Patty –
I’m meeting with Rep. Adam Smith’s district director next Friday and he has some questions about
tolling. Can you help me with the answers to the three questions below? (I’ve attempted to fill in
the first answer based on something I read in a media contact report.) I’ve been reading some of
our folios and documents on our website but I want to make sure I get the messaging right. Would
it be easier for you to e-mail me something or to talk over the phone?
Thanks,
Allison
1.
How do you see I-90 tolling being rolled out? What is the timeline? Next
steps?
WSDOT does not have approval to toll I-90 but the 2011 Legislature provided
WSDOT $1.5 million to study tolling on I-90. During the 2012 legislative session,
they expanded the scope to include environmental work and public outreach. We
are still putting a plan in place but we expect to create an executive advisory group,
similar to what we had in place for I-405 and SR 520.
2.
3.
What are the future (10-20 year) prospects for tolling/tolling studies on
I-5 in Seattle, I-405 and Hwy 167? (how wide do you see the tolling network
growing?)
Allison Dane Camden
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
Date: 6/21/2012 6:25:04 AM
Attachments: CongressmanSmith_tolling_062112.docx
Hi Allison,
1)
January 2009.
Review Project.
2)
and county leaders.
3)
and for long-planned corridor extensions to SR 509 and SR 167. The Legislature has funded toll feasibility
studies or project development funds for all of these efforts.
forthcoming.
Colleen Gants
WSDOT Toll Division
206-465-2311 (cell)
206-716-1150 (desk)
[email protected]
Thanks Allison,
-Patty
Hi Patty –
SR 167.
Thanks!
-Allison
Hi Patty –
Thanks,
Allison
1.
steps?
2.
3.
growing?)
Allison Dane Camden
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
To: Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]
Cc:
Date: 6/21/2012 7:49:20 AM
Attachments:
I have several comments. Is there a time where we can chat together about this?
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
From: Gants, Colleen (Consultant)
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:25 AM
To: Camden, Allison
Cc: Stone, Craig; Rubstello, Patty
Hi Allison,
1)
January 2009.
Review Project.
2)
and county leaders.
3)
and for long-planned corridor extensions to SR 509 and SR 167. The Legislature has funded toll
feasibility studies or project development funds for all of these efforts.
forthcoming.
Colleen Gants
WSDOT Toll Division
206-465-2311 (cell)
206-716-1150 (desk)
[email protected]
Thanks Allison,
-Patty
Hi Patty –
SR 167.
Thanks!
-Allison
Hi Patty –
Thanks,
Allison
1.
steps?
2.
3.
growing?)
Allison Dane Camden
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
Cc:
Date: 6/21/2012 7:49:20 AM
Attachments:
I have several comments. Is there a time where we can chat together about this?
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:25 AM
To: Camden, Allison
Cc: Stone, Craig; Rubstello, Patty
Hi Allison,
1)
January 2009.
Review Project.
2)
and county leaders.
3)
and for long-planned corridor extensions to SR 509 and SR 167. The Legislature has funded toll
feasibility studies or project development funds for all of these efforts.
forthcoming.
Colleen Gants
WSDOT Toll Division
206-465-2311 (cell)
206-716-1150 (desk)
[email protected]
Thanks Allison,
-Patty
Hi Patty –
SR 167.
Thanks!
-Allison
Hi Patty –
Thanks,
Allison
1.
steps?
2.
3.
growing?)
Allison Dane Camden
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
Cc: Michaud, Patricia [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty
[email protected]
Subject: Tolling Q&A for Rep. Smith's Office
Date: 6/21/2012 10:44:11 PM
Attachments: CongressmanSmith_tolling_062112_001.docx
Hi Allison,
Here are the answers to Congressman Smith's questions. Will attach the Regional Toll Work Plan
map in the morning for you, too. -Colleen
QUESTIONS FROM CONGRESSMAN ADAM SMITH
To be addressed by Allison Camden, WSDOT Federal Gov Relations Friday June 22, 2012
1) How do you see I-90 tolling being rolled out? What is the timeline? Next steps?
As part of the overall efforts to fund the SR 520 bridge and ease congestion in the cross-lake
corridor, the 2008 SR 520 Toll Implementation Committee (Dick Ford, Paula Hammond, Bob
Drewel) engaged the public in a discussion focused on financing SR 520 improvements through toll
scenarios on both the 520 and I-90 bridges. The 520 Committee reviewed the form that tolling
may take, traffic diversion, tolling and traffic management technology, and partnership
opportunities. Legislation instructed the Tolling Implementation Committee to survey citizens
about the project, and to submit a final report to the Governor and Legislature by January 2009.
In 2010, the SR 520 Work Group (consisting of the Secretary of Transportation, the Chairs of the
House and Senate Transportation Committees, the King County Representative on the Washington
State Transportation Commission, and local legislators from the 520 corridor) evaluated and
recommended financing and design options for projects in the SR 520 corridor. The Workgroup
unanimously recommended moving forward with the following financing strategy to fill the $2.36
billion funding gap:
Use of previously authorized funding included in early tolling of SR 520 per scenario 7.
Early HOT lane tolling on I-90 as soon as practicable.
Pursue filling the gap through federal and state revenue to be identified over the next two
years.
If the gap is not filled within that time, then move forward with general tolling of I-90 no
sooner than 2014.
While WSDOT does not yet have legislative or federal approval to toll I-90, the 2011 Legislature
provided WSDOT $1.5 million to study tolling I-90. During the 2012 legislative session, the
legislature expanded the scope to include environmental work and public outreach to create the
Comprehensive Tolling Study and Environmental Review Project.
Through ESSB 2190, the legislature directed WSDOT to “$1,500,000 of the motor vehicle account-federal appropriation is provided solely for the I-90 Comprehensive Tolling Study and Environmental
Review project (100067T). The department shall undertake a comprehensive environmental review
of tolling Interstate 90 between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of both managing
traffic and providing funding for construction of the unfunded state route number 520 from
Interstate 5 to Medina project. The environmental review must include significant outreach to
potentially affected communities. The department may consider traffic management options that
extend as far east as Issaquah.”
The NEPA environmental analysis is just getting started reviewing the environmental impacts of
tolling I-90 and analyzing traffic and tolling scenarios. Informal outreach with area leaders is
starting now, with the formal public process beginning in January 2013. The environmental
review process, possibly through an environmental analysis (EA) will go from August 2012 to
October of 2013.
The stakeholder outreach plans are being prepared so that public input can inform the 2014
legislative session as they consider authorizing tolling I-90 or not. WSDOT is drafting a public
involvement plan (PIP), which will include a public comment period, and hosting public meetings
focused on the project scoping, environmental analyses and results, as well as a public hearing.
WSDOT will survey the public to gauge public awareness and acceptance for tolling I-90, and use
these results to inform the public education and outreach efforts. WSDOT staff will make
presentations at community organizations and city council meetings, host a project website, and
We are still putting the PIP together but expect to create an executive advisory group, similar to
what we had in place for I-405 and SR 520, which would include a review of the issues by local
legislators and city and county leaders.
2) What are the future (10-20 year) prospects for tolling/tolling studies on I-5 in Seattle, I405 and Hwy 167? (how wide do you see the tolling network growing?)
That said, WSDOT developed the Moving Washington vision favoring conversion of HOV lanes to
express toll lane facilities to remedy HOV lane speed and reliability performance that does not
meet state or federal standards. The Puget Sound Regional Council has also adopted a regional
transportation plan endorsing express toll lanes by 2030, which calls for full tolling of all limited
access highways by 2040. Tolling is in place on the SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge, authorized for
the SR 99 deep bore tunnel and the I-5 Columbia River Crossing. The legislature has directed
studies considering tolling from I-90 across Lake Washington, and for long-planned corridor
extensions to SR 509 and SR 167. The Legislature has funded toll feasibility studies or project
development funds for all of these efforts.
Important elements of mega-projects that could be funded through a regional tax measure (the
Regional Transportation Improvement District, or RTID) remain unfunded, as are other needs such
as pavement replacement for I-5. Tolls may be part of any significant improvement programs,
especially if federal transportation funding remains limited and new state taxes are not
forthcoming.
WSDOT is currently operating a HOT lane pilot project on SR 167 and is in active development of a
dual-lane express toll facility on the north segment of I-405, which the legislature has conditionally
authorized. WSDOT and I-405 stakeholders hope to expand express toll lanes and invest the funds
to cover the entire corridor including widening between Renton and Bellevue and a direct ramp
connection to the existing SR 167 HOT lanes to provide a continuous 40+ mile I-405/SR 167
express toll lane corridor from Auburn to Lynnwood. This project has been given toll authority by
the Legislature subject to legislative acceptance of a new traffic and revenue analysis by the
Washington State Transportation Commission. This approval is expected prior to Feb. 2013.
[email protected]
Subject: Tolling Q&A for Rep. Smith's Office
Date: 6/21/2012 10:44:11 PM
Attachments: CongressmanSmith_tolling_062112_001.docx
Hi Allison,
map in the morning for you, too. -Colleen
years.
sooner than 2014.
October of 2013.
forthcoming.
[email protected]
Subject: Tolling Q&A for Rep. Smith's Office w/Regional Map attached
Date: 6/22/2012 7:32:31 AM
Attachments: CongressmanSmith_tolling_062112_001.docx; Future_Tolling_Projects_Map_060412.pdf
Hi Allison,
map in the morning for you, too. Good luck today and please call if you need anything! –Colleen
(206-465-2311)
years.
sooner than 2014.
starting now, with the formal public process beginning in January 2013. The environmental review
process, possibly through an environmental analysis (EA) will go from August 2012 to October of
2013.
forthcoming.
[email protected]
Subject: Tolling Q&A for Rep. Smith's Office w/Regional Map attached
Date: 6/22/2012 7:32:31 AM
Attachments: CongressmanSmith_tolling_062112_001.docx; Future_Tolling_Projects_Map_060412.pdf
Hi Allison,
(206-465-2311)
years.
sooner than 2014.
starting now, with the formal public process beginning in January 2013. The environmental review
process, possibly through an environmental analysis (EA) will go from August 2012 to October of
2013.
forthcoming.
To: Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]
[email protected]
Subject: RE: Tolling Q&A for Rep. Smith's Office w/Regional Map attached
Date: 6/22/2012 10:00:31 AM
Attachments:
This is perfect, thank you!!
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 7:33 AM
To: Camden, Allison
Cc: Michaud, Patricia; Stone, Craig; Rubstello, Patty
Subject: Tolling Q &A for Rep. Smith's Office w/Regional Map attached
Hi Allison,
(206-465-2311)
1)
years.
sooner than 2014.
Through ESSB 2190, the legislature directed WSDOT to “ $1,500,000 of the motor vehicle account-federal appropriation is provided solely for the I-90 Comprehensive Tolling Study and Environmental
extend as far east as Issaquah. ”
October of 2013.
2)
What are the future (10-20 year) prospects for tolling/tolling studies on I-5 in Seattle, I405 and Hwy 167? (how wide do you see the tolling network growing?)
forthcoming.
authorized. WSDOT and I-405 stakeholders hope to expand express toll lanes and invest the
funds to cover the entire corridor including widening between Renton and Bellevue and a direct
ramp connection to the existing SR 167 HOT lanes to provide a continuous 40+ mile I-405/SR 167
[email protected]
Date: 6/22/2012 10:00:31 AM
Attachments:
This is perfect, thank you!!
To: Camden, Allison
Hi Allison,
(206-465-2311)
1)
years.
sooner than 2014.
October of 2013.
2)
forthcoming.
[email protected]
Date: 6/22/2012 5:01:55 PM
Attachments:
The meeting with Smith ’s district director went well. Thank you again for compiling all of this
information for me to use, it was very helpful. They may want the Congressman to meet with the tolling
office early next year (assuming he wins reelection, starting in January he ’ll represent Mercer Island and
Bellevue). I ’ll keep you posted on that.
-Allison
To: Camden, Allison
Hi Allison,
(206-465-2311)
1)
years.
sooner than 2014.
October of 2013.
2)
forthcoming.
[email protected]
Date: 6/22/2012 5:01:55 PM
Attachments:
-Allison
To: Camden, Allison
Hi Allison,
(206-465-2311)
1)
years.
sooner than 2014.
October of 2013.
2)
forthcoming.
To: Consultant Camden; Allison; Gants; Colleen (Consultant)
Cc: Michaud; Patricia; Rubstello; Patty
Date: 6/23/2012 1:06:24 AM
Attachments:
Allison – I would be glad to meet with him in the future. Had one meeting with him in Federal Way years
and years ago …
Craig
To: Gants, Colleen (Consultant)
Subject: RE: Tolling Q &A for Rep. Smith's Office w/Regional Map attached
-Allison
To: Camden, Allison
Hi Allison,
(206-465-2311)
1)
years.
sooner than 2014.
October of 2013.
2)
forthcoming.
To: Consultant Camden; Allison; Gants; Colleen (Consultant)
Cc: Michaud; Patricia; Rubstello; Patty
Date: 6/23/2012 1:06:24 AM
Attachments:
Allison – I would be glad to meet with him in the future. Had one meeting with him in Federal Way years
and years ago …
Craig
To: Gants, Colleen (Consultant)
Subject: RE: Tolling Q &A for Rep. Smith's Office w/Regional Map attached
-Allison
To: Camden, Allison
Hi Allison,
(206-465-2311)
1)
years.
sooner than 2014.
October of 2013.
2)
forthcoming.
To: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty
[email protected]; Pope, David [email protected]
Cc: Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]; Larsen, Chad [email protected]
Subject: RE: FW: MAP-21 language for managed lanes / tolling
Date: 6/28/2012 7:40:29 PM
Attachments:
The “federal participation” reference is similar to the current Sec. 129 and I believe it essentially means
that states can toll the facilities listed thereafter. My take on the tolling changes in the conference report
is that tolling is still not allowed on I-90 unless we either reconstruct it or convert HOV to HOT lanes. My
understanding is that we plan to use our authority under the Value Pricing Pilot Program to toll I-90. The
VPP isn’t terminated in the bill (it just won’t receive any funding) so we should still be able to toll under
that authority. I will try to confirm with committee staff tomorrow that the VPP will indeed still exist. Let
me know if you disagree with my interpretation.
From: Stone, Craig
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:29 PM
To: Fellows, Rob; Camden, Allison; Rubstello, Patty; Pope, David
Cc: Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Larsen, Chad
Subject: FW: FW: MAP-21 language for managed lanes / tolling
Importance: High
We need to quickly assess from this whether the concept of tolling I-90 could be allowed or not. On my
first read through section 1512 the key word appears to be ‘participation.’ Does this reflect use of
federal-aid for tolled facilities, or does it include authorization/permission on interstate facilities? Please
review first thing and lets discuss how we think this could affect I-90 tolling. (Section 129 reconstruction
appears good, as does adding lanes for express toll lanes and HOT lanes.)
Craig
To: Fellows, Rob; Stone, Craig
Subject: Fwd: FW: MAP-21 language for managed lanes / tolling
Did we know this? I'm concerned.
Sent from my Samsung Epic™ 4G Touch
-------- Original message -------Subject: FW: MAP-21 language for managed lanes / tolling
From: "Arnold, Paul" <[email protected]>
To: "Rubstello, Patty" <[email protected]>
CC:
Hi Patty -
I thought you might find this summary of the MAP-21 language useful. Our National Managed
Lanes Director provided a nice summary. He wanted me to mention that this is preliminary and he's
not a legal expert, but it does give a picture of where things are going at the federal level.
Thanks,
Paul
________________________________
From: Ungemah, David
To: Arnold, Paul
Subject: MAP-21 language for managed lanes / tolling
Here is my review of the MAP-21 language as it specifically pertains to tolling / managed lanes. For
anyone interested in diving into the 700+ page bill, it’s attached. It’s gone through conference
committee now, but the House and Senate have yet to vote on the bill. That may occur tomorrow
(Senate) and Saturday (House). Stay tuned to for updates.
OK. Lots of changes in Federal law as a result of MAP-21 as it pertains to tolling and managed
lanes. I’ve looked through the changes to sections 1512 and 1514, which are the big ones for this
topic. There are also some interesting elements elsewhere, especially in the research program.
Some notes…
Section 1512
1) Authorization to toll. The general prohibition against tolling on the national highway system
has been relaxed.
a.
States may now construct new toll lanes on existing highways, bridges, and tunnels provided
that the number of toll-free lanes on the corridor remains the same. This would seem to imply that
the use of shoulders for capacity expansion would potentially be permitted provided that the number
of “toll-free lanes” remains the same.
b.
Reconstruction of toll-free bridges and tunnels may be converted to toll bridges / tunnels. This
has great application throughout the U.S., and could be a game-changer for many of our efforts to
rebuild the system. There is no limitation on type of facility in this application
c.
Reconstruction of toll-free highways and conversion to toll facilities EXCEPT those on the
Interstate system. Again, there is great potential here.
d.
HOV lanes may be converted, with limits (see below).
2) Use of revenue. The authorized uses for revenue generated on HOT lanes has been expanded
greatly. Eligible uses now include debt service, private return on investment, all O&M (including
rehab, restoration, resurfacing, and reconstruction), private obligations under P3 (presume
availability payments), and “any other purpose for which Federal funds may be obligated by a State”.
3) HOV conversions. In order to convert the HOV lane to a HOT lane (language still states that
“… may levy tolls on vehicles, excluding high occupancy vehicles…”), there are limitations:
a.
The MPO for the region with the HOV facility must endorse the “placement and amount of
tolls on the converted facility”
b.
The agency must “enforce sanctions for violations of use of the facility.”
c.
Other requirements remain (automatic collection of tolls, variable pricing to manage demand)
4) State law permitting tolling. There’s an interesting new provision: “(9) STATE LAW
PERMITTING TOLLING.—If a State does not have a highway, bridge, or tunnel toll facility as of
the date of enactment of the MAP–21, before commencing any activity authorized under this
section, the State shall have in effect a law that permits tolling on a highway, bridge, or tunnel.” The
impact of this provision is limited to a few states, but there are ones out there as they affect managed
lanes. Hawaii and Oregon came to mind as potentially being affected.
5) Interoperability. Looks like we’re getting a national interoperability by 2016: “(b)
ELECTRONIC TOLL COLLECTION INTEROPERABILITY EQUIREMENTS.—Not later than 4
years after the date of enactment of this Act, all toll facilities on the Federal-aid highways shall
implement technologies or business practices that provide for the interoperability of electronic toll
collection programs.”
6) HOV definition. SAFETEA-LU was silent on the definition of an HOV. However, MAP-21
specifically states that an HOV “means a vehicle with not fewer than 2 occupants”. I am unsure
what the practical implication of this definition is, though, as this is the commonly accepted
language.
Section 1514 / Section 166 (HOV Facilities)
7) HOV performance requirements. MAP-21 states that in order to collect tolls on an HOV lane,
the agency “shall submit to the Secretary a report demonstrating that the facility is not
already degraded, and that the presence of the vehicles will not cause the facility to become
degraded, … and [submit] to the Secretary annual reports of those impact[s].” Additionally, if the
HOV facility is degraded, the agency must bring the facility into compliance by either increasing the
HOV occupancy requirement, varying tolls to reduce demand, discontinuing allowance for nonHOV’s, or increase capacity. If the state fails to act, there are sanctions identified.
New Section: “America Fast Forward Financing Innovation Act of 2012”
8) Creates a new innovative financing chapter. This program seems (at first glance) similar to
TIFIA, in which case loans are repaid from a dedicated source of revenue to include tolls and user
fees.
Research
9) The ITS research code provides dedicated research to “demonstration programs, grant funding,
incentives to eligible entities, and other tools strategies or methods that will result in the deployment
of innovative ITS technologies.” Highest priority funding will be given to projects that enhance and
improve toll collection technologies
10) New research program for “Reducing Congestion, Improving Highway Operations, and
Enhancing Freight Productivity” to include research in active traffic and demand management (note
difference in terminology as defined below) and congestion pricing.
Other related elements
11) “Active Transportation and Demand Management” is now a defined term, as a subset of
“Transportation Systems Management and Operations”
12) “Congestion Pricing” is now a defined term, as a subset of “Transportation Systems
Management and Operations”
13) STP funding may be used for “Projects and strategies designed to support congestion pricing,
including electric toll collection and travel demand management strategies and programs.”
14) CMAQ funding may be used for an expanded list of projects, provided “if the project or
program shifts traffic demand to nonpeak hours or other transportation modes, increases vehicle
occupancy rates, or otherwise reduces demand for roads through such means as telecommuting,
ridesharing, carsharing, alternative work hours, and pricing.”
Still looking for information concerning mileage based user fees (as was announced by Jack Basso
on Tuesday), but I don’t see it.
David
David H. Ungemah
Senior Professional Associate
National Managed Lanes Director
Parsons Brinckerhoff
555 17th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
720.837.1522 (direct)
303.803.2319 (mobile) - NOTE NEW NUMBER
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
www.pbworld.com<http://www.pbworld.com/>
______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain confidential
information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing,
copying, alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or you are not an authorized recipient, please
notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this message and all copies from
your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies.
*** eSafe1 scanned this email for malicious content ***
*** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders ***
Date: 6/28/2012 7:40:29 PM
Attachments:
From: Stone, Craig
Importance: High
Craig
CC:
Hi Patty -
Thanks,
Paul
________________________________
To: Arnold, Paul
Some notes…
Section 1512
has been relaxed.
a.
b.
Reconstruction of toll-free bridges and tunnels may be converted to toll bridges / tunnels. This
c.
d.
a.
b.
c.
language.
fees.
Research
David
David H. Ungemah
Denver, CO 80202
720.837.1522 (direct)
______________________________________________________________________
To: Fellows; Rob; Camden; Allison; Rubstello; Patty; Pope; David
Cc: Consultant Arnold; Paul (Consultant); Larsen; Chad
Date: 6/29/2012 1:28:38 AM
Attachments: CRPT-112hrpt-HR4348.pdf
Craig
CC:
Hi Patty -
Thanks,
Paul
________________________________
To: Arnold, Paul
Some notes…
Section 1512
has been relaxed.
a.
b. Reconstruction of toll-free bridges and tunnels may be converted to toll bridges / tunnels. This
c.
d.
a.
b.
c.
language.
fees.
Research
David
David H. Ungemah
Denver, CO 80202
720.837.1522 (direct)
______________________________________________________________________
To: Fellows; Rob; Camden; Allison; Rubstello; Patty; Pope; David
Cc: Consultant Arnold; Paul (Consultant); Larsen; Chad
Date: 6/29/2012 1:28:38 AM
Attachments: CRPT-112hrpt-HR4348.pdf
Craig
CC:
Hi Patty -
Thanks,
Paul
________________________________
To: Arnold, Paul
Some notes…
Section 1512
has been relaxed.
a.
c.
d.
a.
b.
c.
language.
fees.
Research
David
David H. Ungemah
Denver, CO 80202
720.837.1522 (direct)
______________________________________________________________________
Date: 6/29/2012 11:57:29 AM
Attachments:
That IBTTA call seems to back up my assumption that the VPP is continued. That said, I will get
confirmation from committee staff (that might take a couple of days as I imagine they are all off
celebrating their victory right now).
To: Stone, Craig; Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, Patty; Pope, David
From: Stone, Craig
Importance: High
Craig
CC:
Hi Patty -
Thanks,
Paul
________________________________
To: Arnold, Paul
Some notes…
Section 1512
has been relaxed.
a.
c.
d.
a.
b.
c.
language.
fees.
Research
David
David H. Ungemah
Denver, CO 80202
720.837.1522 (direct)
______________________________________________________________________
Date: 6/29/2012 11:57:29 AM
Attachments:
That IBTTA call seems to back up my assumption that the VPP is continued. That said, I will get
confirmation from committee staff (that might take a couple of days as I imagine they are all off
celebrating their victory right now).
To: Stone, Craig; Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, Patty; Pope, David
From: Stone, Craig
Importance: High
Craig
CC:
Hi Patty -
Thanks,
Paul
________________________________
To: Arnold, Paul
Some notes…
Section 1512
has been relaxed.
a.
c.
d.
a.
b.
c.
language.
fees.
Research
David
David H. Ungemah
Denver, CO 80202
720.837.1522 (direct)
______________________________________________________________________
From:
To:
Stone, Craig [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty
[email protected]; Merkens, Todd [email protected]; Pope, David
[email protected]; Camden, Allison [email protected]
Cc:
Subject:
Value Pricing
Date:
7/3/2012 6:42:24 AM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------Excellent news - confirmation from FHWA that the Value Pricing toll authority
remains intact as suspected.
-- Rob
-----Original Message----From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tue 7/3/2012 3:58 AM
To: Fellows, Rob
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Pilot Programs
Rob,
While the grant program under the Value Pricing Pilot Program was not renewed
in MAP-21, the tolling authority element of the program remains in place, so we
will continue to have the ability to enter into new cooperative agreements for
VPPP toll projects.
-Darren
From: Fellows, Rob [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 7:03 PM
To: Timothy, Darren (FHWA)
Darren, I probably should have mentioned that we sent in an expression of
interest about I-90 back in 2009. We're hoping to update our secretary
tomorrow on whether that option for tolling I-90 remains open to us at least in
theory - if value pricing needed to be renewed to continue, we would need to
reconsider our options.
Thanks,
-- Rob
<mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]>
To: Fellows, Rob
Rob,
Each of the four toll pilot programs has its own timeframes and requirementswhich ones do you have in mind?
-Darren
From: DeCorla-Souza, Patrick (FHWA)
To: 'Fellows, Rob
Cc: Timothy, Darren (FHWA)
Rob - I'm forwarding your question to Darren Timothy who now handles tolling
authority issues.
From: Fellows, Rob [mailto:[email protected]]
To: DeCorla-Souza, Patrick (FHWA)
Subject: Pilot Programs
Patrick, everyone we've spoken to about the reauthorization has assumed that
the tolling pilot programs are not affected and will continue for the 10 year
period they were established for. I'm just trying to get confirmation that
staff there interprets this as we do - can you help me?
Thanks, and hope all is well for you.
-- Rob
_____________
Rob Fellows
Toll Planning and Policy Manager
401 Second Ave. S, Suite 300 ||
(206) 464-1257
||
|| WSDOT Tolling Division
Seattle WA 98104
[email protected]
From:
Arnold, Paul (Consultant)
/O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=ARNOLPL
To:
HQ Design Rubstello; Patty; Singer; Rick; Barry; Ed (HQ Design);
Angove; Angela; [email protected]
Cc:
Subject:
I-90 Tolling Project - Kickoff Meeting with FHWA
Date:
7/12/2012 9:49:00 PM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------When: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 2:30 PM-3:30 PM (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
Canada).
Where: 32nd Floor - Wells Fargo Building
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Hello Everyone
I talked with Randy Everett from FHWA and he is available at this
seems to work for most of you on the invite list as well. It s
to find a time that works for everyone. We will use this time to
Randy to the I-90Tolling project and get his initial input on our
approach, project timeline, milestones and key FHWA requirements.
Rick
I ve
here
that
with
that
and Ed
only been onboard as the Project Manager for the I-90 Tolling Project
at the Tolling Office for the past 6 weeks or so, but the team suggested
I include you on the invitation. I will amend this meeting invitation
a conference call dial-in number as soon as I can reserve one. I realize
some of you may not be able to attend in person.
Thanks,
Paul
time.
It
very difficult
introduce
proposed
From: Slack, Terri [email protected]
To: Todd Merkens [email protected]; Patty [email protected]
Cc: Craig Stone [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: REVIEW REQUEST: Draft expression of interest - FHWA tolling agreement
Date: 7/20/2012 5:21:11 PM
Attachments:
FYI
Sent from my iPhone
From: "Boyd, Nancy" <[email protected]>
Date: July 20, 2012 5:13:49 PM PDT
To: "Slack, Terri (Consultant)" <[email protected]>, "Francis, Carley"
<[email protected]>
Cc: "Strickler, Kris" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: REVIEW REQUEST: Draft expression of interest - FHWA tolling
agreement
FYI – I was on a call today with Dan Mathis and Phil Ditzler (OR FHWA Division Administrator) and
asked about this. Their response: MAP 21 doesn’t take effect until Oct 1st, and it will take at least
that long for the administration to develop new rules. In the meantime, they request that we
follow the existing Safetea-lu process. Our letter can be addressed to John McAvoy.
From: Slack, Terri (Consultant) [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Francis, Carley
Cc: Boyd, Nancy
Subject: RE: REVIEW REQUEST: Draft expression of interest - FHWA tolling agreement
Carley,
I forwarded the EOI to Todd Merkens in the Toll Division who just spoke with FHWA/DC division
regarding a toll agreement for the I-90 bridge. He was told they no longer know what the toll
agreement is with MAP-21; that agreements may not be needed.
Toll division will follow up in writing with FHWA to determine how MAP-21 influences toll
agreements.
Terri Slack
GTC Program Manager
Work: 206-716-1163
Cell: 404-889-7188
From: Francis, Carley [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 9:01 AM
To: Slack, Terri (Consultant)
Cc: Boyd, Nancy
Subject: REVIEW REQUEST: Draft expression of interest - FHWA tolling agreement
Hi Terri,
I drafted the attached as a first step for work with FHWA on the federal tolling agreement. I am
hoping you can review and provide any feedback before it goes to Nancy and Kris for review.
Thanks,
Carley
Carley Francis
Tolling and Financial Planning Specialist
Columbia River Crossing Project
700 Washington Street, Suite 300 | Vancouver, WA 98660
T 360.816.8869
T 503.256.2726 x 8869
F 360.737.8869
*** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders
***
NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the
message and deleting it from your computer.
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: REVIEW REQUEST: Draft expression of interest - FHWA tolling agreement
Date: 7/20/2012 9:08:48 PM
Attachments:
We have to sync up on this. We have an agreement with fhwa now that they won't sign. We can't
have different approaches taken with each project. Let chat on Monday. I think a call to Dan may be
in order.
-------- Original message -------Subject: Fwd: REVIEW REQUEST: Draft expression of interest - FHWA tolling agreement
From: "Slack, Terri" <[email protected]>
To: "Merkens, Todd" <[email protected]>,"Rubstello, Patty" <[email protected]>
CC: "Stone, Craig" <[email protected]>
FYI
Sent from my iPhone
From: "Boyd, Nancy" <[email protected]>
Date: July 20, 2012 5:13:49 PM PDT
To: "Slack, Terri (Consultant)" <[email protected]>, "Francis, Carley"
<[email protected]>
Cc: "Strickler, Kris" <[email protected]>
FYI – I was on a call today with Dan Mathis and Phil Ditzler (OR FHWA Division Administrator)
and asked about this. Their response: MAP 21 doesn’t take effect until Oct 1st, and it will take at
least that long for the administration to develop new rules. In the meantime, they request that we
follow the existing Safetea-lu process. Our letter can be addressed to John McAvoy.
From: Slack, Terri (Consultant) [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Francis, Carley
Cc: Boyd, Nancy
Carley,
I forwarded the EOI to Todd Merkens in the Toll Division who just spoke with FHWA/DC division
regarding a toll agreement for the I-90 bridge. He was told they no longer know what the toll
agreement is with MAP-21; that agreements may not be needed.
Toll division will follow up in writing with FHWA to determine how MAP-21 influences toll
agreements.
Terri Slack
GTC Program Manager
Work: 206-716-1163
Cell: 404-889-7188
From: Francis, Carley [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 9:01 AM
To: Slack, Terri (Consultant)
Cc: Boyd, Nancy
Subject: REVIEW REQUEST: Draft expression of interest - FHWA tolling agreement
Hi Terri,
I drafted the attached as a first step for work with FHWA on the federal tolling agreement. I am
hoping you can review and provide any feedback before it goes to Nancy and Kris for review.
Thanks,
Carley
Carley Francis
Tolling and Financial Planning Specialist
Columbia River Crossing Project
700 Washington Street, Suite 300 | Vancouver, WA 98660
T 360.816.8869
T 503.256.2726 x 8869
F 360.737.8869
________________________________
NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the
sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this
message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
Cc: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; Briglia, Pete
[email protected]
Subject: RE: Time Sensitive Rep. Larsen Request
Date: 7/30/2012 4:55:00 PM
Attachments:
Allison, Craig is out this week, and Patty is out sick today. She might chime in, and Pete may have more
to add, but here are my immediate thoughts:
Washington does not currently have any residential-based toll or fee discounts. The issue hasn’t come up
to date, as far as I’m aware. That said, I could easily imagine that Mercer Island residents could seek
residential exemptions to paying HOT lane or general tolls on I-90, and both Vancouver and Hayden
Island residents may feel they are singled out and look for ways to shift the burden of tolls to those
making longer through-trips. Laws or precedence that supports special tolls based on residence have
potential to make rate-setting more challenging on both I-90 and the CRC project.
The part of the bill I object to personally is section A(5), which declares (basically) that residential-based
toll discounts are universally fair and appropriate regardless of the context or how they are
implemented. It seems obvious to me that even the strongest supporter of the concept could still
conceive of situations where residential discounts would *not* be fair or appropriate. To remove any
case that can be made against and residential discount seems unreasonably sweeping and doesn’t
provide useful guidance in my opinion. I know that FHWA is also very concerned about equity issues
regarding rate-setting which seeks to fund local improvements while putting the burden of tolls on outof-state users who share little of the benefits.
Hope this helps, and let me know if you have questions.
-- Rob
_____________
Rob Fellows
Toll Planning and Policy Manager || WSDOT Tolling Division
401 Second Ave. S, Suite 300 || Seattle WA 98104
(206) 464-1257 || [email protected]
To: Stone, Craig; Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, Patty; Briglia, Pete
Subject: Time Sensitive Rep. Larsen Request
Hi Craig, Rob, Patty and Pete –
On Wednesday the House of Representatives will vote on the attached bill, the Residential and
Commuter Toll Fairness Act (I’ve also pasted the first three sections below). The bill basically reaffirms
the ability of states or other public entities to provide residential toll discounts (the intent is to protect
the discount provided to Staten Island residents from constitutional challenges). It’s not expected to go
anywhere past the vote in the House (it passed the House last Congress and never went anywhere), but
Rep. Rick Larsen is managing it for the Democrats and has asked if WSDOT has any concerns with the bill
or if there are any Washington issues of which he should be aware. I’m not aware of any toll discounts
that we provide but wanted to run this by you. Can you please take a look asap and let me know what
you think?
Thanks!
-Allison
A BILL
To provide authority and sanction for the granting and issuance of programs for
residential and commuter toll, user fee and fare discounts by States,
municipalities, other localities, and all related agencies and departments, and for
other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Residential and Commuter Toll Fairness Act
of 2011'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:
(1) Residents of various localities and political subdivisions
throughout the United States are subject to tolls, user fees, and
fares to access certain roads, highways, bridges, railroads, busses,
ferries, and other transportation systems.
(2) Revenue generated from transportation tolls, user fees, and
fares is used to support various infrastructure maintenance and
capital improvement projects that directly benefit commuters and
indirectly benefit the regional and national economy.
(3) Residents of certain municipalities, counties, and other localities
endure significant or disproportionate toll, user fee, or fare burdens
compared to others who have a greater number of transportation
options because such residents-(A) live in geographic areas that are not conveniently located
to the access points for roads, highways, bridges, rail,
busses, ferries, and other transportation systems;
(B) live on islands, peninsulas, or in other places that are only
accessible through a means that requires them to pay a toll,
user fee, or fare; or
(C) are required to pay much more for transportation access
than residents of surrounding jurisdictions, or in other
jurisdictions across the country, for similar transportation
options.
(4) To address this inequality, and to reduce the financial hardship
often imposed on such residents, several State and municipal
governments and multi-State transportation authorities have
established programs that authorize discounted transportation tolls,
user fees, and fares for such residents.
(5) Transportation toll, user fee, and fare discount programs based
on residential status-(A) address actual unequal and undue financial burdens
placed on residents who live in areas that are only accessible
through a means that requires them to pay a toll, user fee, or
fare;
(B) do not disadvantage or discriminate against those
individuals ineligible for residential toll, user fee, or fare
discount programs;
(C) are not designed to favor the interests or promote the
domestic industry or economic development of the State
implementing such programs;
(D) do not interfere or impose undue burdens on commerce
with foreign nations or interfere or impose any undue burdens
on commerce among the several States, or commerce within
particular States;
(E) do not interfere or impose undue burdens on the ability of
individuals to travel among, or within, the several States;
(F) do not constitute inequitable treatment or deny any
person within the jurisdiction of the United States the equal
protection of the laws; and
(G) do not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States.
(b) Purposes- The purposes of this Act are-(1) to clarify the existing authority of States, counties,
municipalities, and multi-jurisdictional transportation authorities to
establish programs that offer discounted transportation tolls, user
fees, and fares for residents in specific geographic areas; and
(2) to authorize the establishment of such programs, as necessary.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF LOCAL RESIDENTIAL OR
COMMUTER TOLL, USER FEE OR FARE DISCOUNT
PROGRAMS.
(a) Authority To Provide Residential or Commuter Toll, User Fee, or Fare
Discount Programs- States, counties, municipalities, and multijurisdictional transportation authorities that operate or manage roads,
highways, bridges, railroads, busses, ferries, or other transportation
systems are authorized to establish programs that offer discounted
transportation tolls, user fees, or other fares for residents of specific
geographic areas in order to reduce or alleviate toll burdens imposed upon
such residents.
(b) Rulemaking With Respect to the State, Local, or Agency Provision of
Toll, User Fee or Fare Discount Programs to Local Residents or
Commuters- States, counties, municipalities, and multi-jurisdictional
transportation authorities that operate or manage roads, highways,
bridges, railroads, busses, ferries, or other transportation systems are
authorized to enact such rules or regulations that may be necessary to
establish the programs authorized under subsection (a).
(c) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this Act may be construed to limit or
otherwise interfere with the authority, as of the date of the enactment of
this Act, of States, counties, municipalities, and multi-jurisdictional
bridges, railroads, busses, ferries, or other transportation systems.
Allison Dane Camden
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
To: Fellows, Rob [email protected]; Camden, Allison [email protected]
Date: 7/30/2012 4:56:28 PM
Attachments:
Hi Allison
I agree with Rob’s response and don’t have anything to add.
Pete
From: Fellows, Rob
To: Camden, Allison
Cc: Stone, Craig; Rubstello, Patty; Briglia, Pete
Allison, Craig is out this week, and Patty is out sick today. She might chime in, and Pete may have more
to add, but here are my immediate thoughts:
Washington does not currently have any residential-based toll or fee discounts. The issue hasn’t come up
to date, as far as I’m aware. That said, I could easily imagine that Mercer Island residents could seek
residential exemptions to paying HOT lane or general tolls on I-90, and both Vancouver and Hayden
Island residents may feel they are singled out and look for ways to shift the burden of tolls to those
making longer through-trips. Laws or precedence that supports special tolls based on residence have
potential to make rate-setting more challenging on both I-90 and the CRC project.
The part of the bill I object to personally is section A(5), which declares (basically) that residential-based
toll discounts are universally fair and appropriate regardless of the context or how they are
implemented. It seems obvious to me that even the strongest supporter of the concept could still
conceive of situations where residential discounts would *not* be fair or appropriate. To remove any
case that can be made against and residential discount seems unreasonably sweeping and doesn’t
provide useful guidance in my opinion. I know that FHWA is also very concerned about equity issues
regarding rate-setting which seeks to fund local improvements while putting the burden of tolls on outof-state users who share little of the benefits.
Hope this helps, and let me know if you have questions.
-- Rob
_____________
Rob Fellows
Toll Planning and Policy Manager || WSDOT Tolling Division
401 Second Ave. S, Suite 300 || Seattle WA 98104
(206) 464-1257 || [email protected]
To: Stone, Craig; Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, Patty; Briglia, Pete
Subject: Time Sensitive Rep. Larsen Request
Hi Craig, Rob, Patty and Pete –
On Wednesday the House of Representatives will vote on the attached bill, the Residential and
Commuter Toll Fairness Act (I’ve also pasted the first three sections below). The bill basically reaffirms
the ability of states or other public entities to provide residential toll discounts (the intent is to protect
the discount provided to Staten Island residents from constitutional challenges). It’s not expected to go
anywhere past the vote in the House (it passed the House last Congress and never went anywhere), but
Rep. Rick Larsen is managing it for the Democrats and has asked if WSDOT has any concerns with the bill
or if there are any Washington issues of which he should be aware. I’m not aware of any toll discounts
that we provide but wanted to run this by you. Can you please take a look asap and let me know what
you think?
Thanks!
-Allison
A BILL
To provide authority and sanction for the granting and issuance of programs for
residential and commuter toll, user fee and fare discounts by States,
municipalities, other localities, and all related agencies and departments, and for
other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Residential and Commuter Toll Fairness Act
of 2011'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:
(1) Residents of various localities and political subdivisions
throughout the United States are subject to tolls, user fees, and
fares to access certain roads, highways, bridges, railroads, busses,
ferries, and other transportation systems.
(2) Revenue generated from transportation tolls, user fees, and
fares is used to support various infrastructure maintenance and
capital improvement projects that directly benefit commuters and
indirectly benefit the regional and national economy.
(3) Residents of certain municipalities, counties, and other localities
endure significant or disproportionate toll, user fee, or fare burdens
compared to others who have a greater number of transportation
options because such residents-(A) live in geographic areas that are not conveniently located
to the access points for roads, highways, bridges, rail,
busses, ferries, and other transportation systems;
(B) live on islands, peninsulas, or in other places that are only
accessible through a means that requires them to pay a toll,
user fee, or fare; or
(C) are required to pay much more for transportation access
than residents of surrounding jurisdictions, or in other
jurisdictions across the country, for similar transportation
options.
(4) To address this inequality, and to reduce the financial hardship
often imposed on such residents, several State and municipal
governments and multi-State transportation authorities have
established programs that authorize discounted transportation tolls,
user fees, and fares for such residents.
(5) Transportation toll, user fee, and fare discount programs based
on residential status-(A) address actual unequal and undue financial burdens
placed on residents who live in areas that are only accessible
through a means that requires them to pay a toll, user fee, or
fare;
(B) do not disadvantage or discriminate against those
individuals ineligible for residential toll, user fee, or fare
discount programs;
(C) are not designed to favor the interests or promote the
domestic industry or economic development of the State
implementing such programs;
(D) do not interfere or impose undue burdens on commerce
with foreign nations or interfere or impose any undue burdens
on commerce among the several States, or commerce within
particular States;
(E) do not interfere or impose undue burdens on the ability of
individuals to travel among, or within, the several States;
(F) do not constitute inequitable treatment or deny any
person within the jurisdiction of the United States the equal
protection of the laws; and
(G) do not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States.
(b) Purposes- The purposes of this Act are-(1) to clarify the existing authority of States, counties,
municipalities, and multi-jurisdictional transportation authorities to
establish programs that offer discounted transportation tolls, user
fees, and fares for residents in specific geographic areas; and
(2) to authorize the establishment of such programs, as necessary.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF LOCAL RESIDENTIAL OR
COMMUTER TOLL, USER FEE OR FARE DISCOUNT
PROGRAMS.
(a) Authority To Provide Residential or Commuter Toll, User Fee, or Fare
Discount Programs- States, counties, municipalities, and multijurisdictional transportation authorities that operate or manage roads,
highways, bridges, railroads, busses, ferries, or other transportation
systems are authorized to establish programs that offer discounted
transportation tolls, user fees, or other fares for residents of specific
geographic areas in order to reduce or alleviate toll burdens imposed upon
such residents.
(b) Rulemaking With Respect to the State, Local, or Agency Provision of
Toll, User Fee or Fare Discount Programs to Local Residents or
Commuters- States, counties, municipalities, and multi-jurisdictional
bridges, railroads, busses, ferries, or other transportation systems are
authorized to enact such rules or regulations that may be necessary to
establish the programs authorized under subsection (a).
(c) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this Act may be construed to limit or
otherwise interfere with the authority, as of the date of the enactment of
this Act, of States, counties, municipalities, and multi-jurisdictional
bridges, railroads, busses, ferries, or other transportation systems.
Allison Dane Camden
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
From: [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: Meeting to Discuss FHWA Role and Information related to I-90 Tolling
Date: 8/2/2012 12:19:56 PM
Attachments:
Hi Angela and Paul,
I have had the opportunity to meet with several people regarding FHWA roles, review times, legal
requirements, tolling requirements, etc. now and have a final initial kick-off meeting with the Division on
Monday morning. Since I will be out of town from August 13-24, I thought it might be a good idea if we
met to discuss these things before I left so you have some good starting points from us. I also would like
to definitely include Patti (unsure on spelling or e-mail address for her) since I have some direct
information on the tolling process that I want to assure she and I are in step on. Would a meeting next
week work for you? Thanks
Randy Everett
FHWA Major Projects Oversight Manager
Phone: 206-220-7538
From: Angove, Angela [email protected]
To: Everett, Randolph (FHWA) [email protected]; Arnold, Paul (Consultant)
[email protected]; Arnold, Paul [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: RE: Meeting to Discuss FHWA Role and Information related to I-90 Tolling
Date: 8/2/2012 12:56:08 PM
Attachments:
Randy,
Thanks for following up with us. I know that Paul is out next week. Any chance we can touch bases
tomorrow?
Angela
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:20 PM
To: Angove, Angela; Arnold, Paul (Consultant)
Subject: Meeting to Discuss FHWA Role and Information related to I-90 Tolling
Hi Angela and Paul,
I have had the opportunity to meet with several people regarding FHWA roles, review times, legal
requirements, tolling requirements, etc. now and have a final initial kick-off meeting with the Division on
Monday morning. Since I will be out of town from August 13-24, I thought it might be a good idea if we
met to discuss these things before I left so you have some good starting points from us. I also would like
to definitely include Patti (unsure on spelling or e-mail address for her) since I have some direct
information on the tolling process that I want to assure she and I are in step on. Would a meeting next
week work for you? Thanks
Randy Everett
Phone: 206-220-7538
From:
Angove, Angela [email protected]
To:
Everett, Randy (Consultant) [email protected];
Everett, Randolph (FHWA) [email protected]; Arnold, Paul
[email protected]; Arnold, Paul (Consultant)
[email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected];
[email protected]
Cc:
Subject:
FHWA feedback on I-90 Tolling
Date:
8/2/2012 3:27:57 PM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------When: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 10:00 AM-11:00 AM (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
Canada).
Where: Angela's office and Phone Conference 206-440-5007 PIN# 432109
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Following Randy s email, he just stopped by to confirm that he s meeting with
FHWA division staff next week. Following that meeting Randy would like to meet
with us to go over a few items that we initially covered in our mini kick-off
meeting with him and a few additional items that will be good to have as we
move forward over the next couple of months. I know Paul is out but I was
hoping that Patty and I could cover. Hope this works for everyone.
Just in case folks arrive/call in late, I ve set aside an hour knowing that we
won t need the entire time.
David,
I have you as optional in case you d like to hear early FHWA feedback on
schedule, tolling, legal reviews, etc.
Angela
From:
Arnis, Amy [email protected]
To:
[email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected];
Cc:
Stone, Craig [email protected]; Smith, Helena Kennedy
[email protected]; Struna, Rich [email protected]
Subject:
FW: Tolling I90
Date:
8/28/2012 8:10:27 AM
Attachments: Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------Is this the most up to date information on this topic?
under MAP-21?
Did anything change
-----Original Message----From: Ziegler, Jennifer
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 3:11 PM
To: Arnis, Amy
Subject: FW: Tolling I90
Here is the FHWA response regarding tolling I-90.
-----Original Message----From: Fellows, Rob
Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 1:44 PM
To: Arnis, Amy; Rubstello, Patty
Cc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Helena Kennedy
Subject: RE: Tolling I90
We requested from FHWA guidance about the different approaches open to us to
apply for tolling authority on I-90; there is a standard
"expression of interest" form. The response is attached. Let me know if this
is not what you were looking for or if there is something more I can provide.
-- Rob
-----Original Message----From: Arnis, Amy
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:42 PM
To: Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob
Subject: Tolling I90
Craig told me that one of you would have the paper/report regarding how we
might attain federal approval to toll I90. Could you forward to me. Thank you.
From:
To:
Arnis, Amy [email protected]; Ziegler, Jennifer
[email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]
Cc:
Subject:
RE: Tolling I90
Date:
8/28/2012 8:22:22 AM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------Yes, however I have a call with FHWA today to discuss next steps. So far the
word on MAP-21 is that didn't affect the Value Pricing Pilot Program which is
the only federal program that would allow tolling existing general purpose
capacity. It s the only program that will continue to require a tolling
agreement with FHWA.
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:10 AM
To: Ziegler, Jennifer; Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, Patty
Cc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Helena Kennedy; Struna, Rich
Is this the most up to date information on this topic?
under MAP-21?
Did anything change
-----Original Message----From: Ziegler, Jennifer
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 3:11 PM
To: Arnis, Amy
Here is the FHWA response regarding tolling I-90.
Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 1:44 PM
To: Arnis, Amy; Rubstello, Patty
We requested from FHWA guidance about the different approaches open to us to
-- Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: Arnis, Amy
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:42 PM
To: Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob
Subject: Tolling I90
Craig told me that one of you would have the paper/report regarding how we
From:
To:
Cc:
Ziegler, Jennifer [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty
[email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Smith, Helena Kennedy
Subject:
Re: Tolling I90
Date:
8/28/2012 8:25:11 AM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------The new tolling provisions in MAP-21 don't help us with I-90, so our best bet
remains with the Value Pricing program.
There was some concern about whether the value pricing program or other tolling
pilot projects would continue since they were not referenced in MAP-21, but
FHWA sent me an email stating that while there is no new funding attached to
those programs toll authority can still be granted under value pricing.
There is an FHWA webinar on MAP-21 tolling provisions at noon today that I plan
to listen in on for the first half. If I learn anything new I'll pass it along.
-- Rob
On Aug 28, 2012, at 8:10 AM, "Arnis, Amy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is this the most up to date information on this topic? Did anything change
under MAP-21?
>
> -----Original Message----> From: Ziegler, Jennifer
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 3:11 PM
> To: Arnis, Amy
> Subject: FW: Tolling I90
>
> Here is the FHWA response regarding tolling I-90.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----> From: Fellows, Rob
> Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 1:44 PM
> To: Arnis, Amy; Rubstello, Patty
> Cc: Stone, Craig; Smith, Helena Kennedy
> Subject: RE: Tolling I90
>
> We requested from FHWA guidance about the different approaches open to us to
>
> -- Rob
>
> -----Original Message----> From: Arnis, Amy
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:42 PM
> To: Rubstello, Patty; Fellows, Rob
> Subject: Tolling I90
>
> Craig told me that one of you would have the paper/report regarding how we
>
>
>
> <Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Colyar, James (FHWA) [email protected]; Arnold, Paul
(Consultant) [email protected]
Subject: I-90 Tolling Agreement need
Date: 8/28/2012 12:46:42 PM
Attachments: Untitled Attachment; Response to WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009_001.pdf
Angel,
Again, thank you for the phone conversation today. I’ve attached our previous expression of interest
with regards to tolling I-90 which was submitted back in 2008. Since the submission, our legislature has
funded an effort to further study I-90 tolling with a key interest in generating significant revenue. The
study is just getting underway but with the passage of MAP 21, we would like to know how MAP 21
would affect the need for a tolling agreement. With the presumption that to generate significant
revenue on I-90 general purpose lanes would need to be tolled, would a tolling agreement under value
pricing program be needed? Your feedback is very much appreciated. Let me know if there is more
detail you need on this topic.
Have a great Labor Day weekend!
Patty
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
New cell (206)790-2217
From:
To:
Cc:
Ziegler, Jennifer [email protected]; Rubstello, Patty
[email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Smith, Helena Kennedy
Subject:
RE: Tolling I90
Date:
8/31/2012 8:28:06 AM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------Will there be an updated "white paper", as opposed to an email string on this
topic now that you have participated in the webinar?
To: Arnis, Amy
Cc: Ziegler, Jennifer; Rubstello, Patty; Stone, Craig; Smith, Helena Kennedy;
Struna, Rich
Subject: Re: Tolling I90
The new tolling provisions in MAP-21 don't help us with I-90, so our best bet
-- Rob
> Is this the most up to date information on this topic?
under MAP-21?
>
> To: Arnis, Amy
>
>
>
>
> Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 1:44 PM
>
Did anything change
>
> -- Rob
>
>
>
>
>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: I-90 Tolling Agreement need
Date: 9/4/2012 12:42:52 PM
Attachments:
Patty,
Angela has been able to talk to Michael Harkins (in our Chief Counsel’s office) and asked that I follow up
with you on your question below.
Under MAP-21, we believe a VPPP tolling agreement is still necessary. The statute establishing the VPPP
(Section 1012(b)(1) of ISTEA, as amended) requires the execution of a cooperative agreement to
establish value pricing projects (we have been using the cooperative agreements as the toll agreements).
Thus, we must continue executing cooperative agreements for any value pricing project we allow.
For the I-90 project, we discussed a next step being that you notify us (email is fine with us) stating that
WSDOT is seeking authority to toll the existing lanes of the I-90 bridge. Please also provide any other
details or documents that describe the project further (e.g., discounts anticipated, tolling rate structure
and objectives, toll point locations and methods, similarities to SR 520 tolling, etc.). One point to keep in
mind is that under a VPPP agreement, it is required to vary the toll to manage demand (set schedule like
SR520 or something else).
Let me know if you have any questions about this.
Thanks,
James
From: Rubstello, Patty [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:47 PM
To: Jacobs, Angela (FHWA)
Cc: Everett, Randolph (FHWA); Colyar, James (FHWA); Arnold, Paul (Consultant)
Angel,
Patty
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
New cell (206)790-2217
From:
Arnold, Paul [email protected]
To:
[email protected] [email protected];
[email protected]@wsdot.wa.gov; [email protected]
[email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]
Cc:
[email protected] [email protected]
Subject:
FW: I-90 Tolling Agreement need
Date:
9/4/2012 1:39:34 PM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------Hi Colleen, Angela and David -
I thought you should all be in the loop on this.
Paul
________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 12:42 PM
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Patty,
Angela has been able to talk to Michael Harkins (in our Chief Counsel s
office) and asked that I follow up with you on your question below.
Under MAP-21, we believe a VPPP tolling agreement is still necessary. The
statute establishing the VPPP (Section 1012(b)(1) of ISTEA, as amended)
requires the execution of a cooperative agreement to establish value pricing
projects (we have been using the cooperative agreements as the toll
agreements). Thus, we must continue executing cooperative agreements for any
value pricing project we allow.
For the I-90 project, we discussed a next step being that you notify us (email
is fine with us) stating that WSDOT is seeking authority to toll the existing
lanes of the I-90 bridge. Please also provide any other details or documents
that describe the project further (e.g., discounts anticipated, tolling rate
structure and objectives, toll point locations and methods, similarities to SR
520 tolling, etc.). One point to keep in mind is that under a VPPP agreement,
it is required to vary the toll to manage demand (set schedule like SR520 or
something else).
Thanks,
James
Angel,
Again, thank you for the phone conversation today. I ve attached our previous
expression of interest with regards to tolling I-90 which was submitted back in
2008. Since the submission, our legislature has funded an effort to further
study I-90 tolling with a key interest in generating significant revenue. The
study is just getting underway but with the passage of MAP 21, we would like to
know how MAP 21 would affect the need for a tolling agreement. With the
presumption that to generate significant revenue on I-90 general purpose lanes
would need to be tolled, would a tolling agreement under value pricing program
be needed? Your feedback is very much appreciated. Let me know if there is
more detail you need on this topic.
Patty
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
New cell (206)790-2217
______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain
confidential information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing, copying, alteration, dissemination or
distribution of, or reliance on this message is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this message in error, or you are not an authorized recipient,
please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this
message and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies.
From: Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]
To: Fellows, Rob [email protected]; White, John [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: FW: I-90 Tolling Agreement need
Date: 9/5/2012 9:49:53 AM
Attachments:
Hi Rob and John –
I thought I’d keep you both in the loop on this conversation.
John –
We are using the Value Pricing Program as the administrative vehicle to allow tolling on an interstate
highway.
Thanks,
Paul
Cc: Everett, Randolph (FHWA); Arnold, Paul (Consultant); [email protected]
Patty,
Thanks,
James
Angel,
Patty
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
New cell (206)790-2217
From:
To:
White, John [email protected]; Arnold, Paul
(Consultant)[email protected]; Fellows, Rob [email protected]
Cc:
Subject:
RE: I-90 Tolling Agreement need
Date:
9/5/2012 10:35:52 AM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------Hi John -
I think that depends on the level of detail and certainty FHWA requires.
In
the e-mail below James mentioned discounts, tolling rate structure and
objectives, toll point locations and methods. I'll address each one separately
below:
Discounts: It's likely that Mercer Island will seek some sort of
discount. Also, we may still need to discuss discounts in the context of the
2+, 3+ HOV designation. There are likely some opinions within WSDOT, but I'm
not aware of any firm decisions that address discounts. So if FHWA is looking
for a definitive statement regarding discounts, I don't think we're there yet.
Tolling rate structure: I think we can be comfortable assuming that the
toll rate structure would vary by time of day similar to SR 520. The actual
toll rates, have yet to be determined and won't be for some time. Helena has
been doing a number of sensitivity analyses regarding the financial impact of
different I-90 tolling rates (e.g. same as SR 520, 2/3rds of SR520 rates,
etc.). I believe the preliminary analysis is indicating that there is still an
unfunded gap for the SR 520 program even with an identical rate structure.
Toll Points: The project currently assumes a single point tolling method
with operations similar to SR 520. The location of the gantries is currently
assumed to be on the west side of Mercer Island (providing free access and
egress to Mercer Island from the east).
We may need to look at a location on
the east side of Mercer Island based on input from the public involvement
process. If FHWA is comfortable with a location reference that identifies
Mercer Island in general then we're fine. If they want to know which side of
the island, then we would have to wait until we get more input from the public
involvment process.
Tolling Objectives: I believe this is clear. The object of tolling I-90
is to generate revenue for significant improvements in the Cross-Lake
Washington corridor and to manage congestion.
We worked with James on the Alaskan Way Viaduct Transportation Discipline
Report for the EIS. It will be worth our time to keep James in the loop on our
progress and approach to resolving some of these questions as he will likely
have an opinion on how some of these assumptions should be reflected in our
technical analyses.
Rob - Any comments or additional thoughts?
Thanks,
Paul
________________________________
From: White, John [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 9:52 AM
To: Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Fellows, Rob
Thanks Paul, I saw this yesterday. Is the feeling that there is enough system
definition to make this request now?
From: Arnold, Paul (Consultant)
To: Fellows, Rob; White, John
Hi Rob and John
I thought I d keep you both in the loop on this conversation.
John
We are using the Value Pricing Program as the administrative vehicle to allow
tolling on an interstate highway.
Thanks,
Paul
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]]
Cc: Everett, Randolph (FHWA); Arnold, Paul (Consultant);
Patty,
Angela has been able to talk to Michael Harkins (in our Chief Counsel s
office) and asked that I follow up with you on your question below.
Under MAP-21, we believe a VPPP tolling agreement is still necessary. The
statute establishing the VPPP (Section 1012(b)(1) of ISTEA, as amended)
requires the execution of a cooperative agreement to establish value pricing
projects (we have been using the cooperative agreements as the toll
agreements). Thus, we must continue executing cooperative agreements for any
value pricing project we allow.
For the I-90 project, we discussed a next step being that you notify us (email
is fine with us) stating that WSDOT is seeking authority to toll the existing
lanes of the I-90 bridge. Please also provide any other details or documents
that describe the project further (e.g., discounts anticipated, tolling rate
structure and objectives, toll point locations and methods, similarities to SR
520 tolling, etc.). One point to keep in mind is that under a VPPP agreement,
it is required to vary the toll to manage demand (set schedule like SR520 or
something else).
Thanks,
James
Angel,
Again, thank you for the phone conversation today. I ve attached our previous
expression of interest with regards to tolling I-90 which was submitted back in
2008. Since the submission, our legislature has funded an effort to further
study I-90 tolling with a key interest in generating significant revenue. The
study is just getting underway but with the passage of MAP 21, we would like to
know how MAP 21 would affect the need for a tolling agreement. With the
presumption that to generate significant revenue on I-90 general purpose lanes
would need to be tolled, would a tolling agreement under value pricing program
be needed? Your feedback is very much appreciated. Let me know if there is
more detail you need on this topic.
Patty
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
New cell (206)790-2217
______________________________________________________________________
To: White, John [email protected]; Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]
Cc:
Date: 9/5/2012 10:36:18 AM
Attachments:
That was my question too – if they want to know what discounts and pricing structure we’ll have, then
the email would be premature. But if we thought there was any danger in waiting to send the email until
we’ve sorted all that out, then we’d want to do it sooner. If I was Patty I’d carry this email conversation
on further to discuss the timing question.
-- Rob
From: White, John
To: Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Fellows, Rob
Thanks Paul, I saw this yesterday. Is the feeling that there is enough system definition to make this
request now?
Hi Rob and John –
John –
highway.
Thanks,
Paul
Patty,
Thanks,
James
Angel,
Patty
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
New cell (206)790-2217
From: White, John /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=WHITEJH
To: Consultant Arnold; Paul (Consultant); Fellows; Rob
Cc:
Date: 9/5/2012 4:52:00 PM
Attachments:
Thanks Paul, I saw this yesterday. Is the feeling that there is enough system definition to make this
request now?
Hi Rob and John –
John –
highway.
Thanks,
Paul
Patty,
Thanks,
James
Angel,
Patty
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
New cell (206)790-2217
From: Baker, T Brent [email protected]
To: Evans, Ellen [email protected]
Cc: 160190S WSDOT On-Call Trans Studies Project Email [email protected]; OLooney, Kate
[email protected]; Braseth, [email protected]; Arnis, Amy [email protected]; Smith,
HelenaKennedy [email protected]; John White ([email protected])[email protected];
Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; Arnold, Paul [email protected]
Subject: I-90 Pre-Enviro Toll Feasibility -- Draft T&R for Scenario A
Date: 9/6/2012 12:48:15 PM
Attachments: I-90 + SR 520 T&R Tables Scenario A 8-31-12 .xlsx; I-90 Prelim Results Summary for OST
2012Sep5 Draft3.pdf
The good news is the $1.1B figure comes from the highly preliminary work Brent did in summer 2012 to
help the I-90 project team with criteria for screening alternatives. That work did not assume increasing
tolls or tolling beginning in 2014 and was shared with you and the Treasurer’s Office. The email above
gives the details.
I agree with underlying the caution that this was highly preliminary work. John White will be continuing to
work with Jana, me, and PB to update and refine estimates as we move towards the 2014 Session.
I also am concerned about the assumption that “fed funds” will close the gap.
· I am concerned for the impact on the rest of the program;
· I am concerned because Julie says she needs design funds to begin work in fy 2014;
· And I am concerned because the arithmetic assumes that all of I-90 funding goes to SR 520 – and
as said below, I’m hearing estimates in the range of $180 million being requested for I-90.
· I have also heard that Judy Clibborn made a comment that perhaps some I-90 funding should go to
interchange improvements at I-405 – this would be in addition to the $180 million in the bullet
above.
From: Arnis, Amy
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:31 AM
To: Smith, Helena Kennedy; Jen; Stone, Craig; Vaughn, Doug
Cc: Alexander, Jay
Who’s on point for making sure all have the same information on this? On the Orange list it shows that we
need about $425 aside from tolls.
In yesterday’s press conference Rep C. indicated that the gap on completing SR 520 to the west side could
be closed by tolling I-90 and federal funds – what federal funds?’ Jay will reach out to committee staff to
attempt to understand. If one looks back to the December 2009, ESHB 2911 Legislative work group report
there were indications that the gap could be closed by tolling I-90 if pre-completion tolling was
implemented by 2014 on I-90 and I believe that analysis still assumed tolls would increase over time. Lots
of assumptions have changed since then….
Report attached here….
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/partners/sr520legislativeworkgroup/files/finalreport/RecommendationsRpt.pdf
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:54 AM
To: Jen; Stone, Craig
Cc: Arnis, Amy
Yes, the answer below needs the modifier that while tolling I-90 at the level of SR520 tolls could produce
$1.1b in funding, any of that funding that is used on I-90 would reduce the amount available towards the
$1.4B capital cost of the western SR 520.
As of a couple weeks ago, the I-90 project team was talking about wanting $180 million roughly out of the
$1.1B.
From: Jen [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:28 PM
To: Stone, Craig
Cc: Arnis, Amy; Smith, Helena Kennedy
Great. Thanks.
In the project needs list (orange list) we state that I-90 could provide $1.1 billion from tolls. If some
of that is used for I-90 improvements as Rep Clibborn has talked about the amount available for SR
520 would be lower.
To: Arnis, Amy
Cc: Smith, Helena Kennedy; Stone, Craig
Thanks. I think it's going to be a popular question.
From: "Amy Arnis" <[email protected]>
To: "jennifer ziegler" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Helena Kennedy Smith" <[email protected]>, "Craig Stone"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:35:25 PM
I don’t know the answer to that question. Helena and Craig, where are we in being able to answer
that question?
My recollection is that with the cost reduction of the project, we may still have a 400-500m gap, but I
wasn’t sure if there were other conversations about addition possibilities of cost reduction. Finally, I
have no idea what Rep C. meant about federal funds.
To: Arnis, Amy
Subject: I-90 tolling
So, is I-90 tolling sufficient to pay for the funding gap in SR 520?
From: Amy Grotefendt [email protected]
To: Shulman, Phyllis [email protected]; Coppersmith,
[email protected]
Cc: Judd, Ron [email protected]; Meredith, [email protected]; Pihlstrom, Kerry
[email protected]
Subject: RE: transit blog
Date: 9/7/2012 5:57:52 PM
Attachments: image001.jpg; image008.jpg; image009.jpg; image010.jpg; image011.jpg; image012.jpg;
image013.jpg; image014.jpg; image015.jpg
Phyllis and Megan -- Sorry for the delay, but here are the talking points and FAQs that WSDOT will use in
response to questions. Please let me know if you have any questions. My cell is 206-295-9846. Have a
wonderful weekend in the sunshine! Amy
WSDOT Talking Points
·
We appreciate the partnership with SDOT, Seattle City Council and King County to develop the
Second Montlake Bridge technical workgroup report, as called for in the Memorandum of
Understanding between the State and City. The report identifies levels of service to determine
whether a second Montlake bridge will be necessary. These levels of service relate to SR 520 mainline
operations, transit, and bicycles/pedestrians.
·
When funding to complete the west side of the SR 520 project is secured, we will work with our
partners to monitor conditions and determine if the triggers for a second Montlake bridge are met.
This will include taking into account future conditions, such as:
o The potential effect on SR 520 traffic volumes if I-90 is tolled.
o Other potential investments made or planned to improve north-south pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit mobility along Montlake Bridge.
o The needs and interests of jurisdictions, agencies (i.e., FHWA), and stakeholders that rely on
an efficient regional transportation system.
Commonly Asked Questions
Does WSDOT agree with the Seattle City Council ’s recommendation that a second Montlake Bridge is
not needed?
WSDOT agrees with the identification of the triggers in the technical report and appreciates the Council ’s
interest in not constructing a second bridge before it is needed and other options are exhausted. A final
decision will be made in partnership with the City, King County and stakeholders once the major
transportation investments in the SR 520 corridor are funded.
When does a decision on whether a second Montlake bridge is constructed need to be made?
A decision on whether to construct a second Montlake bridge does not need to be made until after
funding is secured and we have had an opportunity to assess conditions on Montlake Bridge and SR 520.
If the second Montlake bridge is not constructed, what will happen to the cost savings?
There is still a need to secure approximately $2 billion in funding for the Westside improvements, so it is
premature to discuss potential cost savings.
Will I-90 tolling be required to fund the remaining improvements on SR 520, and if so, what effect will it
have on traffic volumes on SR 520?
The State Legislature has directed WSDOT to evaluate I-90 tolling as a potential revenue source to fund
the SR 520 westside improvements. If the Legislature authorizes I-90 tolling, we would expect to see a
readjustment of traffic volumes between SR 520 and I-90.
From: Shulman, Phyllis [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 1:16 PM
To: Amy Grotefendt
Subject: FW: transit blog
Bill LaBorde spoke with them and then they spoke with Tim this morning. He provided them the
handouts. Just a head ’s up, Phyllis
Phyllis Shulman
Senior Legislative Advisor to Councilmember Richard Conlin
Seattle City Council
206-684-8805
Follow Richard on his blog
or visit his website for current issues.
cid:[email protected]
From: Coppersmith, Megan
To: Shulman, Phyllis
Subject:
http://seattletransitblog.com/2012/09/07/seattle-releases-montlake-bridge-report/#more-39788
Megan Coppersmith
Seattle City Council Communications
[email protected]
206-615-0061
icon_podcast
Follow the Seattle City Council on:
communications_E-sign
To: Rubstello; Patty; Merkens; Todd; White; John
Cc: Larsen; Chad
Subject: I-90 Toll Agreement
Date: 9/7/2012 8:24:38 PM
Attachments:
With folks out today, for next week I want to follow up on the strategy with federal highways to get an
understanding or clarity on I-90 tolling.
Chad – would setting up a call at 9:00 PST/11:00 CDT on Monday work?
Craig
From:
To:
[email protected]
Cc:
Subject:
FW: Tolling I90
Date:
9/12/2012 10:37:50 AM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------Craig and Helena: Is there any updated information on this topic? Was there
additional information forthcoming from the webinar? I haven't heard back on
this.
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 8:28 AM
To: Fellows, Rob
Struna, Rich
Will there be an updated "white paper", as opposed to an email string on this
topic now that you have participated in the webinar?
To: Arnis, Amy
Struna, Rich
Subject: Re: Tolling I90
The new tolling provisions in MAP-21 don't help us with I-90, so our best bet
-- Rob
> Is this the most up to date information on this topic?
under MAP-21?
>
> To: Arnis, Amy
>
Did anything change
>
>
>
> Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 1:44 PM
>
>
> -- Rob
>
>
>
>
>
From: Colleen Gants [email protected]
To: Stone, Craig [email protected]; [email protected]@wsdot.wa.gov
Cc: Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]; Mouton,Michell
[email protected]
Subject: PLAN/AGENDA for Rep. Clibborn's office (1611 - 116th Avenue NE in Bellevue)
Date: 9/19/2012 6:42:05 PM
Attachments: AGENDA for mtg wCLIBBORN 092012.doc
(I offered to bring treats and Judy would like a skinny latte – anyone else?) – I ’ll bring a graphic of “the
box ” and also the Mercer Island letter. -Colleen
AGENDA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
I-90 Tolling Study Update
a.
Review the Budget Proviso
b.
Environmental Assessment Approach as it relates to “the Box ”
Timing – We need to meet with a few local cities to get started with technical issues related
to the EA
a.
Mercer Island
b.
Issaquah
c.
Sammamish
d.
Bellevue
e.
Seattle?
Discuss who we plan to meet with short term and long term over the next 6 months. Does
she have any thoughts about the people and their "agendas "? Does she want to add or subtract
from our list of contacts.
What are we going to be saying?
a.
Talk about the legislative direction to study tolling on I-90
b.
We are starting the environmental review (EA) – share schedule
c.
Project scope/parameters
d.
Timeline for the study
Other issues:
a.
Executive Committee and who we could include?
i.
Legislators
ii.
iii.
iv.
6.
City leaders
Community leaders
Regulatory leaders
b.
Initiative 1185 and its affect on tolled projects
c.
FHWA letter re: authorization to toll considering new MAP-21
Next Steps:
a.
Reaching out to the cities – would she like to make calls ahead of time?
b.
Setting up meetings
c.
November 5 th Council Briefing with Mercer Island
Key Messages
·
Why to toll I-90 as part of the Cross-Lake Corridor
o
FHWA and WSDOT propose to introduce tolling (between I-5 and I-405) and make
transportation improvements (between I-405 and SR 900 in Issaquah) along the I-90
corridor in the Seattle area.
o
WSDOT will be studying tolling I-90 as directed by the legislative intent of ESHB
2109, which is to “ . . . undertake a comprehensive environmental review of tolling
Interstate 90 between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of both
managing traffic and providing funding for construction of the unfunded state route
number 520 from Interstate 5 to Medina project. The environmental review must
include significant outreach to potentially affected communities. The department may
consider traffic management options that extend as far east as Issaquah. ”
o
Tolls on I-90 are needed to raise revenue for Cross-Lake Washington Corridor
improvements (520 & I-90); alleviate congestion; accommodate regional growth; and
provide reliable travel conditions on the I-90 corridor.
o
Tolling I-90 is not a new idea. Tolling I-90 was a recommended strategy of the
2008 SR 520 Toll Implementation Committee and the 2009 SR 520 Legislative Work
Group - both directed by the legislature to review toll implementation strategies.
·
·
How we will address the environmental review and other corridor improvements
o
WSDOT plans to address the needs of the I-90 corridor by preparing a NEPA
Environmental Assessment (EA) for I-90 Corridor Tolling Elements. This effort will
focus on completing the legislative directive to study the environmental impacts of
implementing mainline tolling on the I-90 bridge.
o
WSDOT is also conducting outreach to potentially affected communities along the
corridor and considering other traffic management options along I-90 as far east as
Issaquah.
o
The I-90 Tolling Study complements WSDOT's I-90 Bellevue to North Bend
Corridor Planning Study (2012).
Engaging Stakeholders
o
·
The I-90 Tolling Study and EA includes public outreach and coordination with
corridor stakeholders, cities and elected officials. This would include an executivelevel advisory group of some kind.
Timing
o
The decision to toll I-90 is up to the legislature. For tolls to start 2015/2016, we
would need toll authorization during the 2014 legislative session.
COLLEEN
GANTS
Principal
206.462.6366 | [email protected]
C 206.465.2311
PRR
1501 Fourth Avenue, Suite 550
Seattle, Washington 98101
206.462.6366 | www.prrbiz.com
Connect: Twitter | Facebook
This e-mail message and any included attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is STRICTLY prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
ne
*** eSafe1 scanned this email for malicious content ***ne
***ne
From: White, John [email protected]
To: Colleen Gants [email protected]
Cc: Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]; Mouton, Michell
[email protected]
Subject: RE: PLAN/AGENDA for Rep. Clibborn's office (1611 - 116th Avenue NE in Bellevue)
Date: 9/20/2012 7:20:05 AM
Attachments:
Colleen,
Thanks for assembling everything and bringing treats, I ’ve already had coffee so don ’t worry about me.
I ’ll be heading over from Goldsmith in a bit, waiting to determine if Craig is leaving from here or headed
straight to Bellevue from home.
See you in a bit,
John
John H. White, P.E.
WSDOT Toll Division
From: Colleen Gants [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 6:42 PM
To: Stone, Craig; White, John
Cc: Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Mouton, Michell
Subject: PLAN/AGENDA for Rep. Clibborn's office (1611 - 116th Avenue NE in Bellevue)
(I offered to bring treats and Judy would like a skinny latte – anyone else?) – I ’ll bring a graphic of “the
box ” and also the Mercer Island letter. -Colleen
AGENDA
1.
a.
b.
Environmental Assessment Approach as it relates to “the Box ”
2.
Timing – We need to meet with a few local cities to get started with technical issues related
to the EA
a.
Mercer Island
b.
Issaquah
c.
Sammamish
d.
Bellevue
e.
Seattle?
3.
Discuss who we plan to meet with short term and long term over the next 6 months. Does
she have any thoughts about the people and their "agendas "? Does she want to add or subtract
4.
a.
b.
c.
5.
6.
d.
Other issues:
a.
i.
Legislators
ii.
City leaders
iii.
Community leaders
iv.
Regulatory leaders
b.
c.
Next Steps:
a.
Reaching out to the cities – would she like to make calls ahead of time?
b.
Setting up meetings
c.
November 5 th Council Briefing with Mercer Island
Key Messages
·
o FHWA and WSDOT propose to introduce tolling (between I-5 and I-405) and make
transportation improvements (between I-405 and SR 900 in Issaquah) along the I-90
corridor in the Seattle area.
o WSDOT will be studying tolling I-90 as directed by the legislative intent of ESHB 2109,
which is to “ . . . undertake a comprehensive environmental review of tolling Interstate 90
between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of both managing traffic and
providing funding for construction of the unfunded state route number 520 from Interstate
5 to Medina project. The environmental review must include significant outreach to
potentially affected communities. The department may consider traffic management
options that extend as far east as Issaquah. ”
o Tolls on I-90 are needed to raise revenue for Cross-Lake Washington Corridor
improvements (520 & I-90); alleviate congestion; accommodate regional growth; and
provide reliable travel conditions on the I-90 corridor.
o Tolling I-90 is not a new idea. Tolling I-90 was a recommended strategy of the 2008 SR
520 Toll Implementation Committee and the 2009 SR 520 Legislative Work Group - both
directed by the legislature to review toll implementation strategies.
·
·
·
o WSDOT plans to address the needs of the I-90 corridor by preparing a NEPA
Environmental Assessment (EA) for I-90 Corridor Tolling Elements. This effort will focus
on completing the legislative directive to study the environmental impacts of
implementing mainline tolling on the I-90 bridge.
o WSDOT is also conducting outreach to potentially affected communities along the
corridor and considering other traffic management options along I-90 as far east as
Issaquah.
o The I-90 Tolling Study complements WSDOT's I-90 Bellevue to North Bend Corridor
Planning Study (2012).
o The I-90 Tolling Study and EA includes public outreach and coordination with corridor
stakeholders, cities and elected officials. This would include an executive-level advisory
group of some kind.
Timing
o The decision to toll I-90 is up to the legislature. For tolls to start 2015/2016, we would
need toll authorization during the 2014 legislative session.
COLLEEN
GANTS
Principal
206.462.6366 | [email protected]
C 206.465.2311
PRR
Seattle, Washington 98101
206.462.6366 | www.prrbiz.com
Connect: Twitter | Facebook
This e-mail message and any included attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is STRICTLY prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
***
From:
Colleen Gants [email protected]
To:
White, John [email protected]
Cc:
Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected];
Mouton,Michell [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]
Subject:
Re: PLAN/AGENDA for Rep. Clibborn's office (1611 - 116th Avenue NE
in Bellevue)
Date:
9/20/2012 7:27:03 AM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------Thanks!
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 20, 2012, at 7:20 AM, "White, John"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Colleen,
Thanks for assembling everything and bringing treats, I ve already had coffee
so don t worry about me. I ll be heading over from Goldsmith in a bit,
waiting to determine if Craig is leaving from here or headed straight to
Bellevue from home.
See you in a bit,
John
John H. White, P.E.
WSDOT Toll Division
From: Colleen Gants [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 6:42 PM
To: Stone, Craig; White, John
Subject: PLAN/AGENDA for Rep. Clibborn's office (1611 - 116th Avenue NE in
Bellevue)
(I offered to bring treats and Judy would like a skinny latte
anyone else?)
I ll bring a graphic of the box and also the Mercer Island letter. Colleen
AGENDA
1.
a.
b.
Environmental Assessment Approach as it relates to
the Box
2.
Timing
We need to meet with a few local cities to get started with
technical issues related to the EA
a.
Mercer Island
b.
c.
Issaquah
Sammamish
d.
Bellevue
e.
Seattle?
3.
Discuss who we plan to meet with short term and long term over the
next 6 months. Does she have any thoughts about the people and their
"agendas"? Does she want to add or subtract from our list of contacts.
4.
a.
b.
We are starting the environmental review (EA)
c.
d.
5.
a.
i.
ii.
Other issues:
Legislators
City leaders
iii.
Community leaders
iv.
Regulatory leaders
b.
share schedule
c.
6.
Next Steps:
a.
time?
b.
c.
Reaching out to the cities
would she like to make calls ahead of
Setting up meetings
November 5th Council Briefing with Mercer Island
Key Messages
·
o
FHWA and WSDOT propose to introduce tolling (between I-5 and I-405) and
make transportation improvements (between I-405 and SR 900 in Issaquah) along
the I-90 corridor in the Seattle area.
o
WSDOT will be studying tolling I-90 as directed by the legislative intent
of ESHB 2109, which is to
. . . undertake a comprehensive environmental
review of tolling Interstate 90 between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the
purposes of both managing traffic and providing funding for construction of the
unfunded state route number 520 from Interstate 5 to Medina project. The
environmental review must include significant outreach to potentially affected
communities. The department may consider traffic management options that extend
as far east as Issaquah.
o
Tolls on I-90 are needed to raise revenue for Cross-Lake Washington
Corridor improvements (520 & I-90); alleviate congestion; accommodate regional
growth; and provide reliable travel conditions on the I-90 corridor.
o
Tolling I-90 is not a new idea. Tolling I-90 was a recommended strategy of
the 2008 SR 520 Toll Implementation Committee and the 2009 SR 520 Legislative
Work Group - both directed by the legislature to review toll implementation
strategies.
·
How we will address the environmental review and other corridor
improvements
o
Environmental Assessment (EA) for I-90 Corridor Tolling Elements. This effort
will focus on completing the legislative directive to study the environmental
impacts of implementing mainline tolling on the I-90 bridge.
o
WSDOT is also conducting outreach to potentially affected communities along
the corridor and considering other traffic management options along I-90 as far
east as Issaquah.
o
The I-90 Tolling Study complements WSDOT's I-90 Bellevue to North Bend
·
o
The I-90 Tolling Study and EA includes public outreach and coordination
with corridor stakeholders, cities and elected officials. This would include
an executive-level advisory group of some kind.
·
Timing
o
The decision to toll I-90 is up to the legislature. For tolls to start
2015/2016, we would need toll authorization during the 2014 legislative session.
COLLEEN GANTS
Principal
206.462.6366 | [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
C 206.465.2311
PRR
Seattle, Washington
98101
206.462.6366 | www.prrbiz.com<http://www.prrbiz.com/>
Connect: Twitter<http://twitter.com/#!/PRRSocial> |
Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/prrbiz>
________________________________
This e-mail message and any included attachments is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is STRICTLY
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
***
________________________________
This e-mail message and any included attachments is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is STRICTLY
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
From: Pace, Emily [email protected]
Cc: Michaud, Patricia [email protected]; Gants, Colleen (Consultant)
[email protected]
Subject: Important info for KING 5/KONG interview
Date: 9/20/2012 2:05:39 PM
Attachments: Stone KING 5 Morning News Interview Packet.docx
Craig,
I’ve attached a final packet with I-90 messaging. I wanted to mention an important note: KING may also
ask about top toll offenders, but if we have not yet provided data to KOMO, I would not share it with
KING since KOMO requested it first. I would stick to the average NOCP amount is $390 for a vehicle
owner with registration hold.
I’ve also included the I-90 points below. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.
Why toll I-90 as part of the Cross-Lake Corridor
·
transportation improvements (between I-405 and SR 900 in Issaquah) along the I-90 corridor in
the Seattle area.
·
WSDOT will be studying tolling I-90 as directed by the legislative intent of ESHB 2109, which is
to “…undertake a comprehensive environmental review of tolling Interstate 90 between Interstate
5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of both managing traffic and providing funding for
construction of the unfunded state route number 520 from Interstate 5 to Medina project. The
environmental review must include significant outreach to potentially affected communities. The
department may consider traffic management options that extend as far east as Issaquah.”
·
Tolls on I-90 are needed to raise revenue for Cross-Lake Washington Corridor improvements
(520 & I-90); alleviate congestion; accommodate regional growth; and provide reliable travel
conditions on the I-90 corridor.
·
Tolling I-90 is not a new idea. Tolling I-90 was a recommended strategy of the 2008 SR 520
Toll Implementation Committee and the 2009 SR 520 Legislative Work Group - both directed by
the legislature to review toll implementation strategies.\u8195
·
WSDOT plans to address the needs of the I-90 corridor by preparing a NEPA Environmental
Assessment (EA) for I-90 Corridor Tolling Elements. This effort will focus on completing the
legislative directive to study the environmental impacts of implementing mainline tolling on the I90 bridge.
·
WSDOT is also conducting outreach to potentially affected communities along the corridor
and considering other traffic management options along I-90 as far east as Issaquah.
·
The I-90 Tolling Study complements WSDOT's I-90 Bellevue to North Bend Corridor Planning
Study (2012).
·
The I-90 Tolling Study and EA includes public outreach and coordination with corridor
stakeholders, cities and elected officials. This would include an executive-level advisory group of
some kind.
Timing
·
The decision to toll I-90 is up to the legislature. For tolls to start 2015/2016, we would need
toll authorization during the 2014 legislative session.
Emily Pace Glad
206-716-1116
[email protected]
From:
Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]
To:
Judd, Ron [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected];
White, John [email protected]; Grotefendt, Amy (Consultant)
[email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; Arnold,
Paul (Consultant) [email protected]; Mouton, Michell
[email protected]
Cc:
Subject:
Action Items from mtg w/Rep. Clibborn re: I-90
Date:
9/20/2012 2:49:46 PM
Attachments: Clibborn Notes 092012.docx
-----------------------------------------------------------ACTION ITEMS/NOTES
I-90 Meeting with Rep. Judy Clibborn
September 20, 2012
Craig Stone, John White, and Colleen Gants met with Rep. Judy Clibborn today to
review the I-90 Tolling Study to brief her on the next steps and get her
approval to be out in her District talking with city staff. The following is a
brief summary of items covered and action items:
1. I-90 Tolling Study Update
a. Review the Budget Proviso
b. Environmental Assessment Approach as it relates to the Box
Judy
confirmed that it would be ok w/Feds for us to do an EA vs. an EIS.
i. Discussed necessary budget to continue working on the study.
ii. Judy asked about the project boundaries and a detailed project map.
iii. EA Approach and questions:
1. 2 documents
bridge is the core; then HOT lanes out east
2. HOT lanes to Issaquah? Within the 2nd document?
3. Tie in with 405 Express Toll Lanes?
4. Braid to get to the inside lanes?
5. HOT to Redmond is a challenge
6. Need to get something from HOT lanes
c. Complements Carol Hunter s I-90 Bellevue to North Bend Corridor Planning
Study.
i. Discussed some of the transportation improvements east of I-405.
ii. Important to focus where people are noticing congestion and complaining.
d. Bridging the gap between 520 funding needs and I-90 toll revenue potential
i. Judy looks forward to more finessing of the finance plan, which includes:
1. Early tolling on the bridge
2. Future tolling of the bridge
3. Pursue Federal dollars and State dollars
4. Remaining dollars stay in the Cross-Lake Corridor
2. Timing
We need to meet with a few local cities to get started with
technical issues related to the EA
a. Mercer Island
fine to contact Rich Conrad, City Manager and meet w/staff
b. Issaquah
fine to contact
c. Sammamish
Judy will contact Sammamish ahead of us
d. Bellevue
fine to contact
e. Seattle
fine to contact
3. Discuss who we plan to meet with short
months. Does she have any thoughts about
she want to add or subtract from our list
a. Judy would like to be kept in the loop
term and long term over the next 6
the people and their "agendas"? Does
of contacts.
and understand the next
steps/milestones.
b. Would be good to give Haugen, King and Armstrong a call.
c. People are likely to call her when the project hits the ground and reports
out.
4.
a.
b.
c.
d.
We are starting the environmental review (EA)
share schedule
5. Other issues:
a. Judy understood the need for an Executive Advisory Group and who we could
include. She sees the functionality as helpful to WSDOT and the State.
i. Legislators
ii. City leaders
iii. Community leaders
iv. Regulatory leaders
b. Following the EAG, a revived Toll Implementation Committee would be helpful
to the cities and constituents. Judy talked about something similar with Paula
Hammond, Bob Drewel and Dick Ford (or other executive leadership that make
sense).
c. Initiative 1185 and its affect on tolled projects
d. FHWA letter re: authorization to toll considering new MAP-21
e. November 5th Council Briefing with Mercer Island
Action Items
Person Responsible
By When?
Colleen will coordinate the following:
Send a copy of I-90 Bellevue to North Bend Corridor Planning Study Carol Hunter
Tuesday 9/25
Send the project boundaries and a detailed project map John White Tuesday 9/25
Prepare a graphic of Next Steps/Milestones to include MAP-21 Paul/John/Colleen
Tuesday 9/25
Set up a mtg to discuss what the Toll Div. is doing for SR 167/SR 509/I-5 Craig
& John to meet; invite Ron Judd;
Colleen will set up mtg. By Monday 9/24
Go over all tolled projects and their funding gaps w/Judy Craig/team In the
meeting above& .
Key Messages
* Why to toll I-90 as part of the Cross-Lake Corridor
o FHWA and WSDOT propose to introduce tolling (between I-5 and I-405) and make
transportation improvements (between I-405 and SR 900 in Issaquah) along the I90 corridor in the Seattle area.
o WSDOT will be studying tolling I-90 as directed by the legislative intent of
ESHB 2109, which is to
. . . undertake a comprehensive environmental review
of tolling Interstate 90 between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the
purposes of both managing traffic and providing funding for construction of the
unfunded state route number 520 from Interstate 5 to Medina project. The
environmental review must include significant outreach to potentially affected
communities. The department may consider traffic management options that extend
as far east as Issaquah.
o Tolls on I-90 are needed to raise revenue for Cross-Lake Washington Corridor
improvements (520 & I-90); alleviate congestion; accommodate regional growth;
and provide reliable travel conditions on the I-90 corridor.
o Tolling I-90 is not a new idea. Tolling I-90 was a recommended strategy of
the 2008 SR 520 Toll Implementation Committee and the 2009 SR 520 Legislative
Work Group - both directed by the legislature to review toll implementation
strategies.
* How we will address the environmental review and other corridor improvements
o WSDOT plans to address the needs of the I-90 corridor by preparing a NEPA
Environmental Assessment (EA) for I-90 Corridor Tolling Elements. This effort
will focus on completing the legislative directive to study the environmental
impacts of implementing mainline tolling on the I-90 bridge.
o WSDOT is also conducting outreach to potentially affected communities along
the corridor and considering other traffic management options along I-90 as far
east as Issaquah.
o The I-90 Tolling Study complements WSDOT's I-90 Bellevue to North Bend
* Engaging Stakeholders
o The I-90 Tolling Study and EA includes public outreach and coordination with
corridor stakeholders, cities and elected officials. This would include an
executive-level advisory group of some kind.
* Timing
o The decision to toll I-90 is up to the legislature. For tolls to start
2015/2016, we would need toll authorization during the 2014 legislative session.
Colleen Gants
WSDOT Toll Division
206-465-2311 (cell)
206-716-1150 (desk)
[email protected]
<<Clibborn Notes 092012.docx>>
-----Original Appointment----From: Gants, Colleen (Consultant)
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:17 AM
To: Judd, Ron; Stone, Craig; White, John; '[email protected]
Subject: Meet w/Rep. Clibborn re: I-90
When: Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:30 AM-9:30 AM (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US
& Canada).
Where: District Office: 1611 116th Ave NE, Bellevue WA 98004, ck in Suite 206
Bring treats
From: Judd, Ron [email protected]
To: Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected];
White, John [email protected]; Grotefendt, Amy (Consultant) [email protected];
Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected];
Mouton, Michell [email protected]
Cc: Hammond, Paula [email protected]
Subject: Re: Action Items from mtg w/Rep. Clibborn re: I-90
Date: 9/20/2012 11:14:32 PM
Attachments:
Craig/Colleen, thanks for your update on the meeting with Rep Clibborn. Sounds as if the discussion was
fruitful and met many of the outcomes we had hoped for. Thanks for the comprehensive nature of your
discussion. Very useful! Let me know what would be helpful, from your prospective, as we move the i-90
tolling discussion forward. Again, very good update and much appreciation to all....rj
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 02:49 PM
To: Judd, Ron; Stone, Craig; White, John; Grotefendt, Amy (Consultant); Rubstello, Patty; Arnold, Paul
(Consultant); Mouton, Michell
Subject: Action Items from mtg w/Rep. Clibborn re: I-90
ACTION ITEMS/NOTES
I-90 Meeting with Rep. Judy Clibborn
September 20, 2012
Craig Stone, John White, and Colleen Gants met with Rep. Judy Clibborn today to review the I-90
Tolling Study to brief her on the next steps and get her approval to be out in her District talking
with city staff. The following is a brief summary of items covered and action items:
1.
a.
b. Environmental Assessment Approach as it relates to “the Box” – Judy confirmed that it
would be ok w/Feds for us to do an EA vs. an EIS.
i.
Discussed necessary budget to continue working on the study.
ii.
Judy asked about the project boundaries and a detailed project map.
iii. EA Approach and questions:
1.
2 documents – bridge is the core; then HOT lanes out east
2.
HOT lanes to Issaquah? Within the 2 nd document?
3.
Tie in with 405 Express Toll Lanes?
4.
Braid to get to the inside lanes?
5.
HOT to Redmond is a challenge
6.
Need to get something from HOT lanes
c.
Complements Carol Hunter’s I-90 Bellevue to North Bend Corridor Planning Study.
i.
Discussed some of the transportation improvements east of I-405.
ii.
Important to focus where people are noticing congestion and complaining.
d.
i.
Bridging the gap between 520 funding needs and I-90 toll revenue potential
Judy looks forward to more finessing of the finance plan, which includes:
1.
Early tolling on the bridge
2.
Future tolling of the bridge
3.
Pursue Federal dollars and State dollars
4.
Remaining dollars stay in the Cross-Lake Corridor
2. Timing – We need to meet with a few local cities to get started with technical issues
related to the EA
a.
Mercer Island – fine to contact Rich Conrad, City Manager and meet w/staff
b.
Issaquah – fine to contact
c.
Sammamish – Judy will contact Sammamish ahead of us
d.
Bellevue – fine to contact
e.
Seattle – fine to contact
3. Discuss who we plan to meet with short term and long term over the next 6 months. Does
she have any thoughts about the people and their "agendas"? Does she want to add or subtract
a.
Judy would like to be kept in the loop and understand the next steps/milestones.
b.
Would be good to give Haugen, King and Armstrong a call.
c.
People are likely to call her when the project hits the ground and reports out.
4.
a.
b.
c.
d.
5.
Other issues:
a. Judy understood the need for an Executive Advisory Group and who we could include. She
sees the functionality as helpful to WSDOT and the State.
i.
Legislators
ii.
City leaders
iii. Community leaders
iv.
Regulatory leaders
b. Following the EAG, a revived Toll Implementation Committee would be helpful to the cities
and constituents. Judy talked about something similar with Paula Hammond, Bob Drewel and Dick
Ford (or other executive leadership that make sense).
c.
d.
e.
November 5th Council Briefing with Mercer Island
Action Items
Person Responsible
By When?
Colleen will coordinate the following:
Send a copy of I-90 Bellevue to North Bend Corridor Planning Study Carol Hunter Tuesday
9/25
Send the project boundaries and a detailed project map John White Tuesday 9/25
Prepare a graphic of Next Steps/Milestones to include MAP-21 Paul/John/Colleen
Tuesday
9/25
Set up a mtg to discuss what the Toll Div. is doing for SR 167/SR 509/I-5
Craig & John to meet;
invite Ron Judd;
Colleen will set up mtg.
By Monday 9/24
Go over all tolled projects and their funding gaps w/Judy
above….
Key Messages
Craig/team
In the meeting
·
o
transportation improvements (between I-405 and SR 900 in Issaquah) along the I-90 corridor in
the Seattle area.
o
WSDOT will be studying tolling I-90 as directed by the legislative intent of ESHB 2109,
which is to “ . . . undertake a comprehensive environmental review of tolling Interstate 90 between
Interstate 5 and Interstate 405 for the purposes of both managing traffic and providing funding for
construction of the unfunded state route number 520 from Interstate 5 to Medina project. The
environmental review must include significant outreach to potentially affected communities. The
department may consider traffic management options that extend as far east as Issaquah.”
o
Tolls on I-90 are needed to raise revenue for Cross-Lake Washington Corridor
improvements (520 & I-90); alleviate congestion; accommodate regional growth; and provide
reliable travel conditions on the I-90 corridor.
o
Tolling I-90 is not a new idea. Tolling I-90 was a recommended strategy of the 2008 SR
520 Toll Implementation Committee and the 2009 SR 520 Legislative Work Group - both directed
by the legislature to review toll implementation strategies.
·
o
Environmental Assessment (EA) for I-90 Corridor Tolling Elements. This effort will focus on
completing the legislative directive to study the environmental impacts of implementing mainline
tolling on the I-90 bridge.
o
WSDOT is also conducting outreach to potentially affected communities along the
corridor and considering other traffic management options along I-90 as far east as Issaquah.
o
The I-90 Tolling Study complements WSDOT's I-90 Bellevue to North Bend Corridor
Planning Study (2012).
·
o
The I-90 Tolling Study and EA includes public outreach and coordination with corridor
stakeholders, cities and elected officials. This would include an executive-level advisory group of
some kind.
·
Timing
o
The decision to toll I-90 is up to the legislature. For tolls to start 2015/2016, we would
need toll authorization during the 2014 legislative session.
Colleen Gants
WSDOT Toll Division
206-465-2311 (cell)
206-716-1150 (desk)
[email protected]
<<Clibborn Notes 092012.docx>>
-----Original Appointment----From: Gants, Colleen (Consultant)
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:17 AM
To: Judd, Ron; Stone, Craig; White, John; '[email protected]'
Subject: Meet w/Rep. Clibborn re: I-90
When: Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:30 AM-9:30 AM (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).
Where: District Office: 1611 116th Ave NE, Bellevue WA 98004, ck in Suite 206
Bring treats
Cc: Larsen, Chad [email protected]
Subject: Weekly report - 9/28
Date: 9/27/2012 3:42:39 PM
Attachments:
Craig,
A little late on my timing again, that will not continue. Not a lot of new information that you don’t
already know, but here goes:
I-90
·
·
·
Mercer Island senior staff meeting this Friday, signals the initiation of the stakeholder outreach
process. Still working to schedule Bellevue, with Issaquah scheduled for Oct. 19th.
Draft Purpose and Need finalized, will be shared with FHWA at the October WSDOT/FHWA kickoff meeting that has yet to be scheduled.
Continued planning work to develop the Public Involvement Plan, refine the EA schedule, and
finalize task orders necessary to mobilize the full work effort.
SR 167
·
·
·
·
Draft net revenue and financial analysis expected by Friday Sept. 28th.
Continued planning for the public and business users focus groups (2 each). Current proposed
dates are Oct. 29th and 30th (public) and Nov. 7th and 8th (business), all in Tacoma. The primary
unresolved question is who outside of WSDOT might be invited to participate as observers (local
government stakeholders, elected, etc)?
Meeting next week with OR to discuss roles and responsibilities, plan for Oct 19th SAC meeting.
Working with Program Mgt to verify availability of 2012-13 LEAP list supplemental funding, and
with the planning team to project potential surplus funding from the current T&R effort.
SR 509 (including SR 509/I-5/SR167 planning)
·
·
·
·
John
Working with Program Mgt to determine ability to utilize existing TPA funds in order to get a
jump start on the expected work effort, and to verify availability of the 2012-13 LEAP list
supplemental funds that are supposed to become available Nov. 1st.
Developing a draft work plan, current thinking is to initiate a Tiger Team type initial approach by
late November to identify design and cost savings opportunities within the currently identified
phasing approaches, as well as identify any additional scope adjustment opportunities that may
have merit towards reducing initial implementation costs. Goal would be to have new thoughts
in support of executive and legislative discussions going into 2013.
Working with Rob Fellows and UPO and NWR to frame SR 509/I-5/SR 167 packaging scenarios
that better equalize the ratio of revenue generation to cost.
Scheduled meeting with PTG to discuss their independent assessment of SR 509/I-5/SR 167.
John H. White, P.E.
WSDOT Toll Division
From: White, John
To: Stone, Craig
Subject: Weekly update
Craig,
Still adjusting to the reporting expectations and timeline, but I believe that I owed you an update e-mail
by COB yesterday. My understanding in talking to Chad and Patty is that there is not a set structure, and
it is focused on what you need to know or support I may need from you. As you would expect, my input
will be a bit limited initially until I have a better grasp on all the relevant details and a few things about
my role are clarified (i.e. I am empowered to do what it takes to help guide and deliver these corridor
efforts). Assuming that is accurate, here goes:
I-90
Don’t think there is much to offer that you don’t already know. There is a well-defined plan, solid core
resources, and the kick-off elected and stakeholder discussions are imminent. The team is still working
on getting all of the consultant resources under contract, but otherwise things seem to be coming
together and the EA and modeling efforts will hopefully be ready to kick-off roughly in parallel with the
initial stakeholder outreach. Regarding the stakeholder outreach, the last aspect remaining is any final
refinement to the messaging. I met with Randy Simonsen and Doug Haight and had a good conversation
regarding R8
SR 167
I met with Shuming and Stacey and they (primarily Shuming) filled me in on the past couple years of
feasibility studies and Stakeholder Committee engagement. Similar to SR 509, it seems like the name of
the game is optimizing toll revenue generation while trying to pin down the shortlist of initial phase
scope and required investment levels. As I mentioned in a previous e-mail, I’d like to get together with
OR staff and get some background from their perspective as well as take a tour of the corridor to better
understand the options that have been laid out. It had sounded like you wanted to have a chat with
Kevin and myself before I fully jumped into this, so I have held off on discussions beyond UPO.
SR 509
My discussion with Shuming and Stacey also covered SR 509 and the work UPO had been involved in. My
observation thus far is that this effort has stalled and needs reviving. I am now familiar with the phasing
plan endorsed earlier this year by the Exec and Steering Committees, which raises a number of questions
in my mind regarding the need for estimate updates that accurately reflect the plan that was endorsed.
Given the revenue gap in the 2010 Feasibility Study (which had optimistic inputs), I have been wondering
whether if there also needs to be some frank discussion of ways to further refine the phasing plan to
assist in closing that gap. Similar to SR 167, until there is an understanding of what role NWR will play,
including staff availability and roles, I am a bit hampered in my ability to make decision and progress
things. I also have some worries regarding the transfer of the knowledge and data/files necessary to
move forward, and the associated inefficiencies. Given the scope of what I perceive as the
environmental and engineering support effort, it raises questions as to what level of consultant support
may be required for consistency and schedule dependability.
I continue to make the rounds, meet with the Toll Division and support players, talk to Patty and Colleen,
and try to better understand how all the pieces fit together for each of these corridors.
John
To: Colyar, James (FHWA) [email protected]
Cc: Merkens, Todd [email protected]; White, John [email protected]
Subject: I-90 Agreement Letter
Date: 9/28/2012 9:56:47 AM
Attachments:
James,
Wanted you to know that we are sending the I-90 letter requesting to start the agreement process to our
Secretary today. My guess is it will go out in the next few days.
Patty
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
To: Colyar, James (FHWA) [email protected]
Cc: Merkens, Todd [email protected]; White, John [email protected]
Subject: I-90 Agreement Letter
Date: 9/28/2012 9:56:47 AM
Attachments:
James,
Wanted you to know that we are sending the I-90 letter requesting to start the agreement process to our
Secretary today. My guess is it will go out in the next few days.
Patty
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
To: Hammond; Paula; Judd; Ron; Lenzi; Jerry C; Ziegler; Jennifer
Cc: Aldridge; Jo
Subject: Friday Morning Tolling Check-In Agenda
Date: 9/28/2012 5:13:05 PM
Attachments: Tolling Context and Hot Topics.docx; 20120928_I-90_Toll Agreement Request.docx
This is a piece we put together this week for Steve Reinmuth as agencies compiled key issues in
anticipation of the upcoming governor change. I thought it would provide a good outline for our tolling
check-in today.
I have also included a final draft of the I-90 letter to FHWA for seeking a toll agreement.
Craig
Craig J Stone, PE
Director, Washington State Toll Division
206.464.1222
To: Larsen, Chad [email protected]
Cc: Stone, Craig [email protected]; Briglia, Pete [email protected]; Fellows, Rob
[email protected]; Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; Michaud, Patricia
[email protected]; Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]; Johnson, Annie
[email protected]; Judd, Ron [email protected]
Subject: Re: Tolling Briefing for Rep. Smith Staff
Date: 10/1/2012 2:43:12 PM
Attachments:
Perfect, thank you!
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 1, 2012, at 2:39 PM, "Larsen, Chad" <[email protected]> wrote:
I’ve reserved a room at SWR for this and set aside a call in number. The afternoon’s JTC meeting
will also be at SWR, so the day will be consistent.
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 8:36 AM
To: Larsen, Chad; Stone, Craig; Briglia, Pete; Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, Patty; Michaud, Patricia; Gants,
Colleen (Consultant); Johnson, Annie
Cc: Judd, Ron
Subject: RE: Tolling Briefing for Rep. Smith Staff
Hi Chad –
Tuesday, October 9th at 10 AM PT works best for Paul. Can we get the right materials pulled
together? Who all should take part in the briefing? I will also be in Vancouver that day – should I
connect with the CRC office about reserving a conference room and call-in number or do you want
to take care of that?
Thanks!
-Allison
From: Larsen, Chad
To: Camden, Allison; Stone, Craig; Briglia, Pete; Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, Patty; Michaud, Patricia; Gants,
Colleen (Consultant); Johnson, Annie
Cc: Judd, Ron
Subject: RE: Tolling Briefing for Rep. Smith Staff
Allison, I’m going to put a few dates together that I hope will work out okay.
For these following 2, both Craig would probably be able to call from the CRC offices in Vancouver:
M 10/8 @ 4p
Tu 10/9 @ 10a
Some other choices are:
W 10/10 @ 10a
F 10/12 @ 1130a
Let me know if you have questions. I’ll work with the communications team to make sure we have a
presentation available to Rep. Smith to review as Craig walks through it.
-
Chad
To: Stone, Craig; Briglia, Pete; Fellows, Rob; Rubstello, Patty; Michaud, Patricia; Gants, Colleen
(Consultant); Johnson, Annie
Cc: Larsen, Chad; Judd, Ron
Subject: Tolling Briefing for Rep. Smith Staff
Hi Craig –
Last week while I was in DC I met with Rep. Smith’s transportation staffer, Paul Hoover, who asked
for a tolling briefing. Beginning in January, Smith’s new district (assuming he wins reelection) will
now encompass Mercer Island and Bellevue. Paul would like a tolling 101 briefing, with a focus on
I-90 and I-405. In particular, he asked me whether or not a certain percentage of any tolls on I-90
would have to stay with I-90 and what we’re hearing from Bellevue regarding the impacts of tolling
on the city (it sounds like he’s heard from the Bellevue Chamber that they are concerned tolling will
drive customers away from Bellevue businesses).
Can we find some time in the next couple of weeks to do a phone briefing with Paul? Ideally you
could give me two or three dates/times the week of October 8th that would work for you and
whoever else might need to be part of the briefing.
Thanks,
Allison
Allison Dane Camden
Office: (360) 705-7507
Cell: (360) 628-6223
[email protected]
From:
To:
Aldridge; Jo
Cc:
Larsen; Chad
Subject:
FW: Friday Morning Tolling Check-In Agenda
Date:
10/4/2012 5:21:13 PM
Attachments: Tolling Context and Hot Topics.docx; 20120928_I-90_Toll Agreement
Request.docx
-----------------------------------------------------------Jo - the attached letter from Paula to FHWA for the I-90 Toll Agreement is
ready for her signature and to be sent to DC. Let me know when she has signed
or if there are any changes she would like.
Craig
p.s. the date will need to be changed to when she signs.
Sent: Fri 9/28/2012 10:13 AM
To: Hammond, Paula; Judd, Ron; Lenzi, Jerry C; Ziegler, Jennifer
Cc: Aldridge, Jo
This is a piece we put together this week for Steve Reinmuth as agencies
compiled key issues in anticipation of the upcoming governor change. I thought
it would provide a good outline for our tolling check-in today.
I have also included a final draft of the I-90 letter to FHWA for seeking a
toll agreement.
Craig
Craig J Stone, PE
206.464.1222
From:
To:
Aldridge; Jo
Cc:
Subject:
RE: Friday Morning Tolling Check-In Agenda
Date:
10/4/2012 5:49:24 PM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------yep, working it
-----Original Message----From: Aldridge, Jo
Sent: Thu 10/4/2012 10:41 AM
To: Stone, Craig
Cc: Larsen, Chad
Subject: RE: Friday Morning Tolling Check-In Agenda
Changed the date, printed and on her desk for signing tomorrow.
Now did Paula ask you about the Pat McCarthy letter?
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:21 AM
To: Aldridge, Jo
Cc: Larsen, Chad
Subject: FW: Friday Morning Tolling Check-In Agenda
Jo - the attached letter from Paula to FHWA for the I-90 Toll Agreement is
ready for her signature and to be sent to DC. Let me know when she has signed
or if there are any changes she would like.
Craig
p.s. the date will need to be changed to when she signs.
Sent: Fri 9/28/2012 10:13 AM
To: Hammond, Paula; Judd, Ron; Lenzi, Jerry C; Ziegler, Jennifer
Cc: Aldridge, Jo
This is a piece we put together this week for Steve Reinmuth as agencies
compiled key issues in anticipation of the upcoming governor change. I thought
it would provide a good outline for our tolling check-in today.
I have also included a final draft of the I-90 letter to FHWA for seeking a
toll agreement.
Craig
Craig J Stone, PE
206.464.1222
To: Camden; Allison
Cc:
Subject: Fw: 520/I-90 Tolling - Bellevue Council direction
Date: 10/9/2012 4:59:17 PM
Attachments:
Fyi
From : Gants, Colleen (Consultant)
Sent : Tuesday, October 09, 2012 09:53 AM
To : Stone, Craig; White, John
Subject : FW: 520/I-90 Tolling - Bellevue Council direction
Colleen Gants
WSDOT Toll Division
206-465-2311 (cell)
206-716-1150 (desk)
[email protected]
From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected] ]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 8:25 AM
Cc: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; Colleen Gants
Subject: 520/I-90 Tolling - Bellevue Council direction
Good morning, Denise – Thank you for your call this morning regarding Council ’s positioning with regard
to I-90 tolling and uses for other corridors, i.e., SR 520. The last time Council took action on this was in
2009 as part of Council ’s adopted 2009 State Legislative Agenda. This could be revisited by Council to
account for changing conditions, but this represents Bellevue ’s most current action.
Excerpt from Bellevue ’s 2009 State Legislative Agenda:
§
Council ’s Position on 520 Tolling: Bellevue ’s position is that the purpose for tolling SR
520 should be to generate revenue to help fund construction of a new SR 520 bridge.
Bellevue supports the following principles:
Timing of tolls on SR 520 - Tolling on the existing SR 520 bridge may be acceptable in
2010 if: (1) deployment of early tolls will result in earlier completion of the project; and (2)
beginning earlier in 2010 allows for lower toll rates more acceptable to the public.
Tolling approach: SR 520 only or both bridges - The toll should be applied only to SR
520. If the scenarios tolling only SR 520 result in unreasonable toll rates, we would urge
the Legislature first to consider whether additional State or Federal resources should be
sought to allow the toll rate to be reduced. If it is determined that tolling I-90 is needed to
help reduce the toll rate on SR 520 or to ease traffic diversion, then:
o
The State should ensure that a toll is accompanied by improvements on the I-90
corridor, such as completion of the R8-A or other projects and;
o
The toll rate for I-90 should be set to minimize the diversion and to fill the funding
gap, rather than tolling it at the same level as SR 520.
Segment tolling - The City of Bellevue does not support the use of segment tolls.
Use of tolling revenues - Tolling revenue should be used for capital construction on the
corridor.
Toll rates if both bridges are tolled - Should the state determine that there is a need to
toll both SR 520 and I-90, the rate of the tolls on each should be established to best
address traffic diversion issues even if that requires differential rates over time. It will be
critical that the relationship and purpose of the tolls be clearly linked to capital
improvements on each corridor with distinct funding assignments between the two
facilities.
Minimize and mitigate traffic diversion on corridors that are not tolled - SR 520
tolling should be implemented in a manner that minimizes traffic diversion on alternate
local and state routes to the greatest extent possible.
Kim Becklund
Transportation Policy Advisor
City of Bellevue, Transportation Dept.
450 110th Avenue NE
Bellevue, WA 98004
425-452-4491-w
206-979-9265-m
425-452-2874-f
This e-mail message and any included attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is STRICTLY prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
Subject: FW: 121015-005 HAMMOND
Date: 10/31/2012 3:42:49 PM
Attachments: 10-26-12 HAMMOND SIGNED RESPONSE.pdf;
Hi Patty and Paul,
You will most likely soon be receiving this letter (pdf) from Paula’s office. The direction within this letter
appears to me to be counter to what we have researched and given you previous direction on. We might
want to contact Darren together to assure that we have our process correct. Either way, this will most
likely confuse Paula’s office (since she sent the WSDOT Toll Agreement request letter personally to
Victor) and we should probably get to the bottom of why this response letter was sent. I have copied
Angela on this e-mail as well in hopes she might be able to shed any light. Thanks
Randy Everett
Phone: 206-220-7538
From: Goodwillie, Teri (FHWA)On Behalf Of FHWA, Washington (FHWA)
To: Handel, Lindsey (FHWA); Everett, Randolph (FHWA)
For your information…please file as appropriate. No action is required.
Teri Goodwillie
Administrative Assistant
Federal Highway Administration
Washington Division
711 S. Capitol Way, Suite 501
Olympia, WA 98501
360-753-9480
[email protected]
From: Zaccagnino, Rosemary (FHWA)
To: FHWA, Washington (FHWA); Pritchard, Edward A (FHWA)
Cc: Peterson, Mary (FHWA)
Subject: 121015-005 HAMMOND
Date: 10/31/2012 3:42:49 PM
Hi Patty and Paul,
Randy Everett
Phone: 206-220-7538
Teri Goodwillie
Washington Division
Olympia, WA 98501
360-753-9480
[email protected]
Date: 10/31/2012 3:42:49 PM
Hi Patty and Paul,
Randy Everett
Phone: 206-220-7538
Teri Goodwillie
Washington Division
Olympia, WA 98501
360-753-9480
[email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: 121015-005 HAMMOND
Date: 11/1/2012 11:36:30 AM
Attachments:
Hi Todd,
Just a brief update…I have contacted Darren Timothy (referenced in the letter) and am attempting to set
up a call with him shortly. It appears that all those in initial conversations concerning the subject (Angela
Jacobs, James Colyar) continue to have the understanding we still require a Tolling Agreement.
Therefore, I think we just need to get our Executives informed. I will let you know something soon
hopefully.
Randy Everett
Phone: 206-220-7538
From: Merkens, Todd [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:48 PM
To: Everett, Randolph (FHWA)
Cc: Rubstello, Patty; Arnold, Paul (Consultant)
Randy, just to let you know we were able to talk with Paula’s office and give her a heads up.
Let us know what you find out from Angela.
Thanks,
Todd S. Merkens
Tolling Engineer
WSDOT
Office: (206) 716-1151
Cell: (206) 799-7030
From: Merkens, Todd
To: Everett, Randolph (FHWA)
Cc: Rubstello, Patty; Arnold, Paul (Consultant)
Hi Randy,
Nice to talk with you again.
Here is my contact information, below:
Thanks,
Todd S. Merkens
Tolling Engineer
WSDOT
Office: (206) 716-1151
Cell: (206) 799-7030
From: Everett, Randolph (FHWA)
To: Rubstello, Patty; Arnold, Paul (Consultant)
Cc: Colyar, James (FHWA); Handel, Lindsey (FHWA); [email protected]
Hi Patty and Paul,
Randy Everett
Phone: 206-220-7538
Teri Goodwillie
Washington Division
Olympia, WA 98501
360-753-9480
[email protected]
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Date: 11/1/2012 12:27:32 PM
Attachments:
Hi Todd, Patty and Paul,
James Colyar and I just got off the phone with Darren Timothy at our HQ office. No red flags here at all.
The letter was simply meant to be a generic information letter responding to Paula’s letter asking you to
coordinate with Darren as you move forward with the Tolling Agreement process. Obviously, our
Executives will most likely not be able to provide a definitive approval of a Tolling Agreement until the
bitter end due to the politics of tolling, but they did want to respond to Paula since she had asked for a
response by the end of October.
Summary: Patty and Todd, you should work through Darren’s office as we move forward with developing
the Tolling Agreement. We know you will keep us involved as you move forward and we appreciate it.
Thanks all
Randy Everett
Phone: 206-220-7538
To: Rubstello, Patty ([email protected]); [email protected]
Cc: Colyar, James (FHWA); Handel, Lindsey (FHWA); Jacobs, Angela (FHWA)
Hi Patty and Paul,
Randy Everett
Phone: 206-220-7538
Teri Goodwillie
Washington Division
Olympia, WA 98501
360-753-9480
[email protected]
To: White, John [email protected]
Cc:
Date: 11/2/2012 9:11:48 AM
Attachments:
Hi John
I didn’t see you on the cc list. It looks like this was a non-issue, but I wanted you to be aware of the
conversation.
Paul
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 12:28 PM
To: Rubstello, Patty; Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Merkens, Todd
Cc: Colyar, James (FHWA); Handel, Lindsey (FHWA); [email protected]; Petersen, Don (FHWA)
Thanks all
Randy Everett
Phone: 206-220-7538
Hi Patty and Paul,
Randy Everett
Phone: 206-220-7538
From: Goodwillie, Teri (FHWA) On Behalf Of FHWA, Washington (FHWA)
Teri Goodwillie
Washington Division
Olympia, WA 98501
360-753-9480
[email protected]
Cc:
Subject: Re: follow-up from meeting with Representative Clibborn - letter to FHWA on I-90
Date: 11/8/2012 2:57:29 AM
Attachments:
Alison - Yes, I am the right person to follow up with. We'll be able to send you a copy of the letter to
FHWA in the morning.
Craig
From: Hellberg, Alison [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 03:33 PM
To: Stone, Craig
Subject: follow-up from meeting with Representative Clibborn - letter to FHWA on I-90
Hi Craig,
Hope you’re well. During the meeting last Wednesday in Bellevue, Secretary Hammond said that WSDOT
had sent a letter to the FHWA about tolling I-90. Representative Clibborn wanted me to check about
getting a copy of the letter. Would you be the rightperson to contact about this?
Thanks,
Alison
Alison Reed Hellberg, Counsel
Transportation Committee
Office of Program Research
Washington State House of Representatives
360.786.7152
To: Rubstello; Patty
Cc: Larsen; Chad
Subject: Fw: follow-up from meeting with Representative Clibborn - letter to FHWA on I-90
Date: 11/8/2012 2:59:24 AM
Attachments:
Patty-can you follow up with Alison and provide her our letter.
Perhaps you should include our prior letter of interest and their reply from the TIC work.
Craig
From: Stone, Craig
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Craig
To: Stone, Craig
Hi Craig,
getting a copy of the letter. Would you be the rightperson to contact about this?
Thanks,
Alison
360.786.7152
Cc: Stone, Craig [email protected]
Subject: FW: follow-up from meeting with Representative Clibborn - letter to FHWA on I-90
Date: 11/8/2012 10:36:39 AM
Attachments: WSDOT Expression of Interest for I-90 w Attachment.pdf; Response to
WashingtonEoI.Letter January 7_2009.pdf; 20121005_I-90_Toll Agreement Letter to FHWA.pdf
Allison,
Craig asked that I follow-up with you on your request. We have had previous discussions with FHWA on
the topic of tolling I-90. We thought it best to give you this background information in addition to the
specific letter you are requesting.
Back in 2008, we had specific legislation (ESHB 3096) to initiate the conversation with FHWA to
determine if tolling I-90 was even an option with FHWA. At that time, FHWA’s process for gaining an
understanding about what was possible as it relates to tolling was to submit an Expression of Interest. I
have attached our expression of interest for your use. FHWA replied back with a letter, also attached,
that indicated the various programs that were available at that time to support the various tolling
scenarios we identified (full road tolling to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes).
Now to the letter you were asking about. I have attached Paula’s letter that requests that both parties
engage in a tolling agreement.
Please let me know if there is anything more you need on this topic.
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
From: Stone, Craig
Craig
To: Stone, Craig
Hi Craig,
getting a copy of the letter. Would you be the right person to contact about this?
Thanks,
Alison
360.786.7152
To: Rubstello; Patty
Cc:
Date: 11/8/2012 5:31:54 PM
Attachments:
The response letter does not make much sense, so I was thinking we needed more info before we sent
out the reply.
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 09:05 AM
To: Stone, Craig
Subject: RE: follow-up from meeting with Representative Clibborn - letter to FHWA on I-90
Do you want the response letter sent as well? I hate not sending it but it’s such a strange letter since it
implies we don’t need an agreement but we do.
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
From: Stone, Craig
Cc: Larsen, Chad
Subject: Fw: follow-up from meeting with Representative Clibborn - letter to FHWA on I-90
Patty-can you follow up with Alison and provide her our letter.
Perhaps you should include our prior letter of interest and their reply from the TIC work.
Craig
From: Stone, Craig
Craig
To: Stone, Craig
Hi Craig,
Thanks,
Alison
360.786.7152
From: Rubstello, Patty /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=HOSLERP
Cc: Stone; Craig
Date: 11/8/2012 5:36:00 PM
Allison,
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
From: Stone, Craig
Craig
To: Stone, Craig
Hi Craig,
Thanks,
Alison
360.786.7152
Cc: Stone; Craig
Date: 11/8/2012 5:36:00 PM
Allison,
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
From: Stone, Craig
Craig
To: Stone, Craig
Hi Craig,
Thanks,
Alison
360.786.7152
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: I-90 Tolling Project Final Draft Purpose and Need
Date: 11/26/2012 2:29:22 PM
Attachments:
I have reviewed the document and made a couple of edits/comments (see attached).
As I mentioned in my comments on the EJ Outreach methodology document, somewhere we need to
communicate what constitutes “HOV”. Currently, I-90 HOV refers to carpools with 2-plus occupants. Is
this going to change to 3+ or remain at 2+?
In addition, it seems to me that there needs to be some discussion on potential impacts to Interstate-5 as
part of this document – considering SR 520, I-90 and AWV Bored Tunnel (and parts of I-405) are all
proposed to be tolled. Would this be part of the cumulative/indirect effects discussion? Food for
thought.
Thank you,
Jodi
Jodi Petersen
FHWA Division Civil Rights Program Manager
Olympia, Washington 98501
(360)534-9325
[email protected]
From: Angove, Angela [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:04 PM
To: Everett, Randolph (FHWA); Everett, Randy (Consultant); Handel, Lindsey (FHWA); Love, Sharon (FHWA);
Healy, Elizabeth (FHWA); Bridgers, Mystery (FHWA); Petersen, Jodi (FHWA)
Cc: Angove, Angela; David Mattern; Cade, Deborah (ATG); Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Arnold, Paul; Hanson,
Allison
Subject: I-90 Tolling Project Final Draft Purpose and Need
Good morning,
I hope you all had a great holiday weekend. We have revised the purpose and need statement per FHWA
comments during our kickoff meeting October 29th. Please take another look and provide any additional
comments or suggestions by COB Friday, December 7th. If you have no comments, we plan to use this
version as the basis for our outreach and scoping materials knowing that it may change based on any
comments received during scoping. Don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you!
Angela Angove
Project Environmental Manager
999 Third Ave. Suite 2424
Seattle, WA 98104
206-805-2832 office (Mon, Tues, Thurs, every other Fri)
206-719-3619 cell (Wed)
[email protected]
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Date: 11/26/2012 2:31:13 PM
Attachments: Revised_Draft_Purpose_and_Need_for_FHWA(2).docx
thought.
Thank you,
Jodi
Jodi Petersen
(360)534-9325
[email protected]
Allison
Good morning,
Angela Angove
Seattle, WA 98104
206-719-3619 cell (Wed)
[email protected]
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Date: 11/29/2012 10:28:11 AM
Attachments: Revised_Draft_Purpose_and_Need_for_FHWA(with JLP and LLH comments).docx
Hi Angela,
My comments on the I-90 Tolling Project Draft Purpose and Need are in the attachment. I included them
with Jodi Peterson’s review comments.
Thanks,
Lindsey
Lindsey L. Handel, P.E.
Urban Transportation Engineer
Olympia, WA 98501-1284
[email protected]
360-753-9550
From: Petersen, Jodi (FHWA)
To: Angove, Angela; Everett, Randolph (FHWA); Everett, Randy (Consultant); Handel, Lindsey (FHWA); Love,
Sharon (FHWA); Healy, Elizabeth (FHWA); Bridgers, Mystery (FHWA)
Cc: David Mattern; Cade, Deborah (ATG); Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Arnold, Paul; Hanson, Allison
thought.
Thank you,
Jodi
Jodi Petersen
(360)534-9325
[email protected]
Allison
Good morning,
Angela Angove
Seattle, WA 98104
206-719-3619 cell (Wed)
[email protected]
From:
Merkens, Todd [email protected]
To:
Rubstello, Patty [email protected]; White, John
[email protected]; Arnold, Paul (Consultant)
[email protected]; Gants, Colleen (Consultant)
[email protected]
Cc:
Subject:
RE: I-90 Tolling Agreement
Date:
11/30/2012 11:01:19 AM
Attachments: 20121130 I-90 Tolling Agreement DRAFT.docx
-----------------------------------------------------------Here is an updated draft of the I-90 FHWA/WSDOT toll agreement:
<<20121130 I-90 Tolling Agreement DRAFT.docx>>
Thanks,
Todd S. Merkens
Tolling Engineer
WSDOT
Office: (206) 716-1151
Cell: (206) 799-7030
-----Original Appointment----From: Rubstello, Patty
To: White, John; Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Merkens, Todd; Gants, Colleen
(Consultant); Rubstello, Patty
Subject: I-90 Tolling Agreement
When: Friday, November 30, 2012 9:00 AM-10:00 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
Canada).
Where: Goldsmith - 4th Floor Medium
<<I-95 HOT Lanes - Project Brief.doc.doc>> Attached is an example of a briefing
paper that I received from FHWA. They have asked that we develop a similar one
for I-90. I wanted us to get together to discuss what we would put into the
paper and who will be responsible for doing that. Also, define who needs to be
a part of the review process as well.
From:
To:
Stone, Craig [email protected]; Gants, Colleen (Consultant)
[email protected]
Cc:
Arnold, Paul (Consultant) [email protected]
Subject:
I-90 Leg Briefing
Date:
12/4/2012 3:52:03 PM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------Decided to do I-90 first due the enormous amount of 520 material. Thought it
went well, there were only a few questions and a couple follow-ups. Both Amy
Arnis and Ron Judd were there, along with the 520 crew.
Key points/follow-ups:
"
"
"
Amy Arnis clarified that while WSDOT might need legislative toll authorization in 2014, there
There was a question regarding FHWA, and the potential for controversy regarding using toll r
Clint McCarthy wanted to clarify the agency request budget, said we would follow-up on that s
John
From:
To:
White, John [email protected]; Stone, [email protected];
Gants, Colleen (Consultant)[email protected]
Cc:
Mouton,Michell [email protected]
Subject:
RE: I-90 Leg Briefing
Date:
12/4/2012 6:04:45 PM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------I will start pulling together a summary of the history of communications with
FHWA tomorrow morning. Since we're using VPP, I'll pull together information
related to that program and Map21 as well.
Paul
________________________________________
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 2:52 PM
To: Stone, Craig; Gants, Colleen (Consultant)
Subject: I-90 Leg Briefing
Decided to do I-90 first due the enormous amount of 520 material. Thought it
"
"
"
John
______________________________________________________________________
From:
Gants, Colleen (Consultant) [email protected]
To:
Arnold, Paul [email protected]; White, John
[email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]
Cc:
Mouton, Michell [email protected]
Subject:
Date:
12/4/2012 7:00:39 PM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------Thanks Paul
Colleen Gants
WSDOT Toll Division
206-465-2311 (cell)
206-716-1150 (desk)
[email protected]
-----Original Message----From: Arnold, Paul [mailto:[email protected]]
To: White, John; Stone, Craig; Gants, Colleen (Consultant)
Subject: RE: I-90 Leg Briefing
I will start pulling together a summary of the history of communications with
FHWA tomorrow morning. Since we're using VPP, I'll pull together information
related to that program and Map21 as well.
Paul
________________________________________
"
"
"
John
______________________________________________________________________
From:
To:
White; John
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
12/4/2012 11:44:48 PM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------Thanks. We should follow up at some point why I-80 in PA is different from I90 in WA. I talked to Clibborn about this when PA was denied by FHWA.
-----Original Message----From: White, John
"
"
"
John
To: Stone, Craig [email protected]; White, John [email protected]; Arnold, Paul (Consultant)
[email protected]
Cc:
Subject: Q&A's for the I-90 Bellevue Council presentation tonight - will bring you a copy
Date: 12/10/2012 4:41:05 PM
Attachments:
I-90 tolling: For tonight, be prepared to discuss:
1.
What is rationale for tolling I-90 but not I-5?
a)
The 2211 Legislative Work Group recommended tolling I-90 if we could not find other means to fill the
SR 520 funding gap. See arrow diagram for I-90 tolling discussions since 2006.
b)
We are starting the visioning process for I-5 from Tumwater to Marysville now. Likely plans include
express toll lanes for I-5.
c)
We are doing design work for I-5/SR 167/SR 509 Project now. Likely plans include express toll lanes
for I-5.
2.
What is Seattle ’s experience with 99 route? What is anticipated impact of diversion? Has that been
considered for I-90 and SR 520 tolling?
a)
Yes, we are modeling diversion in a similar fashion to what is being modeled for SR 99.
3.
What is anticipated impact to Mercer Island? Where would tolling sites be located to capture tolls
eastbound/westbound?
a)
We are studying the effects of tolling I-90 to Mercer Island.
b)
We are studying alternative tolling locations between I-5 and I-405.
4.
a)
How will membership on the Executive Advisory Committee be established?
We will send a letter to Mayor Conrad Lee with a request for participation by a Bellevue Council
member.
a)
b)
Who are the important players in the decision making?
The public will have input, as well as local jurisdictions.
FHWA decides to sign a toll agreement authorizing tolls on I-90. The WA State Legislature will decide
I-90 toll authorization; and the Commission sets toll rates, exemptions and discounts.
5.
6.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
7.
a)
8.
What is timeline?
Public Scoping & Comment – Jan. 22 to Feb. 22
Public Scoping Mtgs. – Jan. 29, 30, 31
Transportation Analysis – June 2013
Public Hearing – November 2013
Findings – Early 2014
Toll Authorization Needed – 2014
Toll Implementation – 2015/2016
Will some $ raised in the corridor stay in corridor or will all be diverted to SR 520?
The WA State Legislature will decide where toll revenue goes, taking into consideration the funding
gap on SR 520.
What are alternatives to tolling? If you live in Bellevue and want to go elsewhere, will need to pay toll.
Bellevue has more skin in the game, with significantly greater impacts. Hope that ’s recognized and
rewarded when gas tax is being sent out for projects.
a)
The alternative to tolling is raising the gas tax and acquiring federal loans. We have pursued and been
awarded several federal loans, we ’ve bonded, we ’ve tolled, we have 2003 & 2005 gas taxes, and there ’s
still a 520 funding gap.
b)
As the 2211 Legislative Work Group recommended, we are looking at tolling I-90. See arrow diagram
for I-90 tolling discussions since 2006.
c)
The 2012 WA State Legislature directed WSDOT to do an environmental review of tolling I-90. That ’s
where we are now.
d)
As for preferences when a gas tax comes along, that is a legislative decision.
Cc:
Subject: RE: Q&A's for the I-90 Bellevue Council presentation tonight - will bring you a copy
Date: 12/10/2012 5:17:56 PM
Attachments:
The draft responses look good. A couple minor things:
·
·
I ’ll look to Craig as to the messaging for I-5 ETL at this stage. It has been seeping out publicly through
recent efforts, and as you reference, the I-5/SR 509/SR 167 project study underway right now is looking at
specific I-5 ETL scenarios. I am unclear as to the audience/visibility/timing of Rob ’s broader I-5 ETL study, but
it feels like I-5 ETL will keep gaining more and more interest and visibility.
Regarding SR 99 diversion, along with referencing the fact the transportation demand modeling effort for
I-90/SR 520 will project diversion as the cross-lake corridor ‘re-balances ’ under full tolling, the diversion
opportunities and characteristics for I-90/SR 520 are very different than SR 99 and the issues Seattle has
struggled with.
John
John H. White, P.E.
WSDOT Toll Division
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 3:41 PM
To: Stone, Craig; White, John; Arnold, Paul (Consultant)
Subject: Q &A's for the I-90 Bellevue Council presentation tonight - will bring you a copy
I-90 tolling: For tonight, be prepared to discuss:
1.
What is rationale for tolling I-90 but not I-5?
a)
The 2211 Legislative Work Group recommended tolling I-90 if we could not find other means to fill the
SR 520 funding gap. See arrow diagram for I-90 tolling discussions since 2006.
b)
We are starting the visioning process for I-5 from Tumwater to Marysville now. Likely plans include
express toll lanes for I-5.
c)
We are doing design work for I-5/SR 167/SR 509 Project now. Likely plans include express toll lanes
for I-5.
2.
What is Seattle ’s experience with 99 route? What is anticipated impact of diversion? Has that been
considered for I-90 and SR 520 tolling?
a)
Yes, we are modeling diversion in a similar fashion to what is being modeled for SR 99.
3.
What is anticipated impact to Mercer Island? Where would tolling sites be located to capture tolls
eastbound/westbound?
a)
We are studying the effects of tolling I-90 to Mercer Island.
b)
We are studying alternative tolling locations between I-5 and I-405.
4.
a)
5.
a)
b)
How will membership on the Executive Advisory Committee be established?
We will send a letter to Mayor Conrad Lee with a request for participation by a Bellevue Council
member.
Who are the important players in the decision making?
The public will have input, as well as local jurisdictions.
FHWA decides to sign a toll agreement authorizing tolls on I-90. The WA State Legislature will decide
I-90 toll authorization; and the Commission sets toll rates, exemptions and discounts.
6.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
7.
a)
8.
What is timeline?
Public Scoping & Comment – Jan. 22 to Feb. 22
Public Scoping Mtgs. – Jan. 29, 30, 31
Transportation Analysis – June 2013
Public Hearing – November 2013
Findings – Early 2014
Toll Authorization Needed – 2014
Toll Implementation – 2015/2016
Will some $ raised in the corridor stay in corridor or will all be diverted to SR 520?
The WA State Legislature will decide where toll revenue goes, taking into consideration the funding
gap on SR 520.
What are alternatives to tolling? If you live in Bellevue and want to go elsewhere, will need to pay toll.
Bellevue has more skin in the game, with significantly greater impacts. Hope that ’s recognized and
rewarded when gas tax is being sent out for projects.
a)
The alternative to tolling is raising the gas tax and acquiring federal loans. We have pursued and been
awarded several federal loans, we ’ve bonded, we ’ve tolled, we have 2003 & 2005 gas taxes, and there ’s
still a 520 funding gap.
b)
As the 2211 Legislative Work Group recommended, we are looking at tolling I-90. See arrow diagram
for I-90 tolling discussions since 2006.
c)
The 2012 WA State Legislature directed WSDOT to do an environmental review of tolling I-90. That ’s
where we are now.
d)
As for preferences when a gas tax comes along, that is a legislative decision.
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
RE: MAP-21 question
Date:
12/11/2012 4:09:29 PM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------Hi John Yes - I left a packet with a flow chart showing the progression of
communications with FHWA regarding I-90 tolling on your chair last week.
Probably the best two documents I can share with respect to MAP-21 and the VPPP
are attached below.
I will send via separate e-mails to keep it short.
I
hope this helps.
____________________________________________
Taken from FHWA Map-21 Questions and Answers on their website.
highlighted the relevant text in Red.
I have
www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21qandas/qatolling.cfm<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21qandas/qatolling.cfm>
Preliminary Tolling and Pricing Questions & Answers
Posted 9/25/2012
Question 4: What happens to the Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP) under MAP-21
(Section 1012(b) of ISTEA)?
Answer 4: MAP-21 does not make any changes to this program. As a result, FHWA's
ability to enter into cooperative agreements for projects that require tolling
authority under this program for their implementation will continue. However,
no additional funds are authorized after Fiscal Year 2012 for the discretionary
grant component of this program.
Question 5: May HOV lanes be converted to HOT lanes under MAP-21?
Answer 5: Yes. Tolling authority for converting high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes to high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes remains available under the Section
166 HOV lanes program.
Question 6: Are tolling agreements still required under MAP-21?
Answer 6: Under MAP-21, tolling agreements are no longer required for the two
mainstream tolling programs (Section 129 and Section 166). However, tolling
agreements will continue to be required under the ISRRPP and VPPP.
Question 7: Have any tolling authorities been mainstreamed under MAP-21?
Answer 7: Yes. Tolling for the construction of new Interstate highways and the
tolling of new lanes added to Interstate highways are now eligible under 23
U.S.C. 129. Prior to Section 1512 of MAP-21, these eligibilities were only
available through pilot programs with limited participation.
Question 8: Are there any new requirements associated with tolling authority
under MAP-21?
Answer 8: MAP-21 adds a new statutory requirement under 23 U.S.C. 129 and 166
for annual audits to verify adequate maintenance and compliance with the
limitations on the use of revenues. If such audits reveal that an agency is not
in compliance with these restrictions, MAP-21 also specifies that the Secretary
of Transportation may order that toll collection be discontinued until an
agreement to achieve compliance is reached.
Question 9: Can toll revenues be used to fund transit investments?
Answer 9: Yes. If the public authority certifies to the FHWA annually that the
tolled facility is being adequately maintained, the public authority may use
toll revenues for any purpose for which Federal funds may be obligated by a
State under title 23, United State Code. (Section 1512 of MAP-21; 23 U.S.C.
129(a)(3)(A)(iv)).
Question 10: Will there be further guidance regarding tolling and pricing?
Answer 10: Yes, further guidance is forthcoming.
________________________________________
To: Arnold, Paul
Subject: MAP-21 question
Paul,
Had you had a chance to gather the specific reference to MAP-21 where the Value
Pricing Program is carried forward, which would allow tolling of an existing
Interstate highway without adding new capacity? I also thought there was a
reference that allowed for using proceeds for needs outside of the highway
being tolled?
I have a hard copy MAP-21 tolling reference in my office that I thought was
pretty clear. Need something I can share by e-mail.
Thanks,
John
______________________________________________________________________
To: White, John [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: Map-21, VPPP and Tolling Agreements
Date: 12/11/2012 4:16:03 PM
Attachments:
This e-mail is in response to a response from FHWA to a letter from Paula Hammond requesting to start
the process for an I-90 tolling agreement. Essentially, FHWA sent us a bit of a generic reply that got a
few people confused. This e-mail chain confirms that we should move ahead with the process to create
a tolling agreement through Darren Timothy.
Not sure that this chain is worth forwarding on to others. Randy is somewhat informal in his language –
see below. However, this gives you a pretty clear picture of where we stand.
Paul
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 12:28 PM
To: Rubstello, Patty; Arnold, Paul (Consultant); Merkens, Todd
Cc: Colyar, James (FHWA); Handel, Lindsey (FHWA); [email protected]; Petersen, Don (FHWA)
Thanks all
Randy Everett
Phone: 206-220-7538
Hi Patty and Paul,
Randy Everett
Phone: 206-220-7538
From: Goodwillie, Teri (FHWA) On Behalf Of FHWA, Washington (FHWA)
Teri Goodwillie
Washington Division
Olympia, WA 98501
360-753-9480
[email protected]
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
RE: MAP-21 question
Date:
12/11/2012 4:26:06 PM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------Sorry - I must have mis-typed the link.
This one should work.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qatolling.cfm
________________________________________
To: Arnold, Paul
Subject: Re: MAP-21 question
Thanks Paul, I have and appreciate the flow chart with the history. I must
have missed the MAP-21 references, and the FHWA web link seems to have changed.
----- Original Message ----From: Arnold, Paul [mailto:[email protected]]
To: White, John
Subject: RE: MAP-21 question
Hi John Yes - I left a packet with a flow chart showing the progression of
are attached below.
I
hope this helps.
____________________________________________
I have
Posted 9/25/2012
under MAP-21?
129(a)(3)(A)(iv)).
________________________________________
To: Arnold, Paul
Paul,
being tolled?
Thanks,
John
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
RE: MAP-21 question
Date:
12/11/2012 4:30:38 PM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------BTW - I wasn't being snippy - I'm always happy to help.
But, I thought if you
did bring the packet with you it had a handy table with the VPPP issues and
federal requirements in the back to which you could refer.
MAP-21 didn't
explicitly deal with VPPP it just didn't cancel it so we had to ask FHWA if it
stayed in effect. They said it does just without additional funding.
Thanks,
Paul
________________________________________
To: Arnold, Paul
Thanks Paul, I have and appreciate the flow chart with the history. I must
To: White, John
are attached below.
I
hope this helps.
____________________________________________
I have
Posted 9/25/2012
Question 4: What
(Section 1012(b)
Answer 4: MAP-21
ability to enter
happens to the Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP) under MAP-21
of ISTEA)?
does not make any changes to this program. As a result, FHWA's
into cooperative agreements for projects that require tolling
under MAP-21?
129(a)(3)(A)(iv)).
________________________________________
To: Arnold, Paul
Paul,
being tolled?
Thanks,
John
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
From:
White, John /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=WHITEJH
To:
Arnold; Paul
Cc:
Subject:
Re: MAP-21 question
Date:
12/11/2012 11:20:50 PM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------Thanks Paul, I have and appreciate the flow chart with the history. I must
To: White, John
are attached below.
I
hope this helps.
____________________________________________
I have
Posted 9/25/2012
under MAP-21?
129(a)(3)(A)(iv)).
________________________________________
To: Arnold, Paul
Paul,
being tolled?
Thanks,
John
______________________________________________________________________
From:
White, John /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=WHITEJH
To:
Rubstello; Patty
Cc:
Subject:
Re: MAP-21 question
Date:
12/12/2012 12:24:08 AM
Attachments:
-----------------------------------------------------------I have that, guess the question was 'is there anything else' relevant in the
changes. We're fine for now, maybe we can catch up tomorrow or Thurs re: FHWA
and the toll agreement discussions?
----- Original Message ----From: Rubstello, Patty
To: White, John
I heard from Paul he sent you something on this. The challenge is MAP-21 was
silent to VPP. Which means they didn't change anything about it.
Patty Rubstello, PE
Toll Policy and System Development, Director
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
Subject: Fw: MAP-21 question
Patty,
Forwarding this to you in case you have something readily available. Looking
for the specific MAP-21 references that 'allow' for tolling of I-90 and using
proceeds outside of the corridor.
If you don't have something readily available, I'll track it down tomorrow.
Thanks,
John
----- Original Message ----From: White, John
To: Arnold, Paul
Paul,
being tolled?
Thanks,
John
To: White, John [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc:
Date: 12/12/2012 6:37:15 PM
Attachments:
I'm not aware that anything else changed. All of the conversations we have had with the feds have
said the same thing. I nudged Colleen again yesterday about the brief paper we need to send in.
I'm out until next Wednesday. Feel free to chat with Todd if you need something more before I get
back.
"White, John" <[email protected]> wrote:
I have that, guess the question was 'is there anything else' relevant in the changes. We're fine for
now, maybe we can catch up tomorrow or Thurs re: FHWA and the toll agreement discussions?
----- Original Message ----From: Rubstello, Patty
To: White, John
I heard from Paul he sent you something on this. The challenge is MAP-21 was silent to VPP.
Which means they didn't change anything about it.
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
Subject: Fw: MAP-21 question
Patty,
Forwarding this to you in case you have something readily available. Looking for the specific MAP21 references that 'allow' for tolling of I-90 and using proceeds outside of the corridor.
If you don't have something readily available, I'll track it down tomorrow.
Thanks,
John
----- Original Message ----From: White, John
To: Arnold, Paul
Paul,
Had you had a chance to gather the specific reference to MAP-21 where the Value Pricing Program
is carried forward, which would allow tolling of an existing Interstate highway without adding new
capacity? I also thought there was a reference that allowed for using proceeds for needs outside of
the highway being tolled?
I have a hard copy MAP-21 tolling reference in my office that I thought was pretty clear. Need
something I can share by e-mail.
Thanks,
John
From: Farley, Kimberly [email protected]
To: Hammond, Paula [email protected]; Arnis, Amy [email protected]
Cc: Laird, Linea [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected]; Judd, Ron
[email protected]; Grotefendt, Amy [email protected]; Turner, Amy (Consultant)
[email protected]
Subject: ACTT progress report
Date: 12/17/2012 4:54:38 PM
Attachments: ACTT_Progressreport_letter_draft_121212.pdf; ACTT_Progressreport_draft_121212.pdf
Paula and Amy,
Attached is the draft letter from ACTT co-chairs Maud Daudon and Claudia Balducci and the
committee’s progress report. Late this week or next week, the report will be mailed to a variety of
recipients including the Governor, State Treasurer, legislative transportation leadership, Seattle
City Councilmembers and the Mayor, FHWA and the viaduct program partner agencies. You will
both receive a copy as well.
I thought you might also be interested to know that Ellen Evans, Deputy Treasure, met with Maud to
discuss their report. From Maud’s perspective, it was a very candid and positive conversation (I’m sure
Amy you have heard more than I have about their meeting).
The committee chose to provide this report halfway through their analysis of potential toll
scenarios for the SR 99 tunnel. Committee recommendations about tolling the tunnel and
minimizing and mitigating the effects from traffic diversion are anticipated in mid-2013.
I thought you would want a heads up on the policy questions that have been discussed in ACTT
meeting, which they have included in the letter and report. We have discussed these with you
previously, but I thought I would summarized them here because they will likely be of interest to
you, the Commission, and legislators.
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Priority of state’s use of toll revenue: what types of costs should be covered by toll
revenue and in what relative order.
Financing and toll rate adjustments: how capital costs could be financed and whether toll
rates could be adjusted in future years to keep up with inflation.
Allocation of toll collection costs: how statewide tolling system costs are allocated among
facilities.
Systems approach to tolling: as the region moves forward with studying and tolling
additional highways, the committee sees value in analyzing a systems approach to tolling –
I-5, I-405, I-90, SR 99 - to reduce diversion across the regional roadway network.
Freight rates: what freight rate structure makes sense for the tunnel.
Mitigation funding: finding a funding source for potential mitigation measures.
Transit funding: finding a sustainable funding source for King County Metro service.
The co-chairs will discuss the progress report at the Jan. 23 Transportation Commission meeting
and have offered briefings to other policymakers as well.
We have a tolling update on Friday where we can talk more about this if you would like.
Talk with you Friday,
Kimberly Farley, JD
Director of Operations, AWV Project
999 3rd Ave., Suite 2424
Seattle, WA 98104
office: 206-805-2827
cell: 206-659-2557
From: Farley, Kimberly [email protected]
To: Griffith, Reema [email protected]; Parker, Paul [email protected]; Crocker, Noah
[email protected]
Cc: Turner, Amy (Consultant) [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected];
Laird, Linea [email protected]; Judd, Ron [email protected]
Subject: Coming soon - ACTT Progress report
Date: 12/18/2012 1:55:08 PM
Attachments:
Happy Holidays!
I am following up with you about the letter that will be coming from the co-chairs of the Advisory
Committee on Tolling and Traffic Management (ACTT), Maud Daudon and Claudia Balducci, along
with the committee’s progress report. Late this week or next week, the report will be mailed to a
variety of recipients including the Governor, State Treasurer, legislative transportation leadership,
the Transportation Commission, Seattle City Council members, the Mayor, FHWA and the viaduct
program partner agencies.
meeting, which they have included in the letter and report. We have discussed these in previous
briefings, but I thought I would summarize them here because they will likely be of interest to you,
the Governor, and legislators.
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
facilities.
The co-chairs will discuss the progress report at the Jan. 23 Transportation Commission meeting,
and they have offered to provide briefings to other policymakers as well.
Please feel free to call me if you have questions.
Kimberly Farley, JD
Seattle, WA 98104
office: 206-805-2827
cell: 206-659-2557
From: Griffith, Reema [email protected]
To: Farley, Kimberly [email protected]; Parker, Paul [email protected]; Crocker, Noah
[email protected]
Cc: Turner, Amy (Consultant) [email protected]; Stone, Craig [email protected];
Laird, Linea [email protected]; Judd, Ron [email protected]
Subject: RE: Coming soon - ACTT Progress report
Date: 12/18/2012 2:49:05 PM
Attachments:
Excellent update Kimberly. Thanks for sending along.
Reema
From: Farley, Kimberly
To: Griffith, Reema; Parker, Paul; Crocker, Noah
Cc: Turner, Amy (Consultant); Stone, Craig; Laird, Linea; Judd, Ron
Subject: Coming soon - ACTT Progress report
Happy Holidays!
I am following up with you about the letter that will be coming from the co-chairs of the Advisory
Committee on Tolling and Traffic Management (ACTT), Maud Daudon and Claudia Balducci, along
with the committee’s progress report. Late this week or next week, the report will be mailed to a
variety of recipients including the Governor, State Treasurer, legislative transportation leadership,
the Transportation Commission, Seattle City Council members, the Mayor, FHWA and the viaduct
program partner agencies.
meeting, which they have included in the letter and report. We have discussed these in previous
briefings, but I thought I would summarize them here because they will likely be of interest to you,
the Governor, and legislators.
·
·
·
·
·
facilities.
·
·
The co-chairs will discuss the progress report at the Jan. 23 Transportation Commission meeting,
and they have offered to provide briefings to other policymakers as well.
Please feel free to call me if you have questions.
Kimberly Farley, JD
Seattle, WA 98104
office: 206-805-2827
cell: 206-659-2557
To: Consultant Gants; Colleen (Consultant); White; John; Merkens; Todd
Cc: Consultant Arnold; Paul (Consultant); Mouton; Michell
Subject: RE: I-90 Tolling Fact Sheet for FHWA Toll Authoriization
Date: 12/21/2012 10:03:00 PM
Attachments: 20121221_I-90 Fact Sheet for Toll Authorization pr.docx
I took a look and made some edits. Clearly need some word-smithing but I think you will get what I was
trying to do. I inserted a few photos that I think help as well. If you have better ones, please feel free to
use them instead.
Patty Rubstello, PE
WSDOT
(206)464-1299
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:43 AM
To: Rubstello, Patty; White, John
Subject: I-90 Tolling Fact Sheet for FHWA Toll Authoriization
Attached, along with latest Purpose and Need for the I-90 Tolling EA. Paul suggested providing you with
both the clean Purpose & Need and the version that has FHWA Q&A with it.
Saved at: I:\\5 Communications & Government Relations\\1_I90\\FHWA Toll Authorization
Thanks,
Colleen
Colleen Gants
WSDOT Toll Division
206-465-2311 (cell)
206-716-1150 (desk)
[email protected]
From: Angove, Angela /O=WA.GOV/OU=WSDOT/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=FREUDA
To: FHWA Handel; Lindsey (FHWA)
Cc:
Subject: Need FHWA signature and distribution of I-90 Tolling invitation letters
Date: 12/21/2012 11:16:35 PM
Attachments: NEPA_tribal participating letter.doc; I-90 Final Draft Legal Notice_12-18-12(2).doc; I90TribalConsultationPlan_DRAFT_1-13.doc
Lindsey,
Per my voicemail, here is the letter that needs to be sent out to the tribes for the I-90 Tolling Project. We
plan to send out the other letters the first week of January. I will be out next week but tracking emails
and calls on my blackberry. Feel free to call if you need to before sending these out. There is some
discussion about changing the location of the third scoping meeting-if that happens I will make sure to
send you a revised scoping notice ASAP. Thank you! Happy Holidays!
Angela Angove
Seattle, WA 98104
206-719-3619 cell (Wed)
[email protected]

2012 - City of Mercer Island

Transcription

Similar documents

Opportunities for Managing Transportation Systems with Pricing

where merchant and mobile services merge

Tolling in Louisiana: Past, Present and Future

S - Mads Tolling

I-90 Snoqualmie Pass East Project Briefing

33465_22 Acres on Smokey Hollow Rd_Dekorra_SBP_Sale_11TX

TransCore

E. Stocchi, AISCAT