HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-03-2009 - Agenda PacketMEDINA, WASHINGTON
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
MEDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2009
6:30 PM
MAYOR CITY MANAGER
MARK NELSON DONNA HANSON
DEPUTY MAYOR
CITY ATTORNEY
JIM LAWRENCE
WAYNE TANAKA
COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
LUCIUS BIGLOW
RACHEL BAKER
DREW BLAZEY
BRET JORDAN
BOB RUDOLPH
SHAWN WHITNEY
CALL TO ORDER 6:30PM
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 6:30 PM
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
OTHER BUSINESS
013-1: Tolling Discussion
The City Council will discuss tolling associated with the State Route 520 Bridge and
HOV Replacement Project. Discussion will include considerations of tolling SR-520 only
versus tolling of SR-520 and 1-90.
Council may take action to properly state its position on tolling and to direct
communication of its position to appropriate governing, legislative and regulatory bodies
and/or agencies.
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Monday, March 9, 2009; 6:30 pm.
Medina City Hall • 501 Evergreen Point Road • Medina WA 98039
425-233-6400 ph • 425-454-8490 fx • www.medina-wa.gov
Washington State BILL
House of Representatives ANALYSIS
Office of Program Research
Transportation Committee
HB 2211
Brief Description: Addressing the authorization, administration, collection, and enforcement of
tolls on the state route number 520 corridor.
Sponsors: Representatives Clibborn, Eddy, Maxwell and Liias.
Brief Summary of Bill
• Imposes tolls on the State Route (SR) 520 corridor, which is defined as the portion of
SR 520 between Interstate 5 and SR 202.
• Limits the toll rate in 2008 dollars to $3.25 in one direction prior to the completion of
the replacement floating bridge, and $3.80 in one direction after the completion of the
replacement floating bridge.
• Requires the toll rates to be set to generate revenue sufficient support $1.2 billion in
bonds and operations and maintenance.
• Restricts the expenditure of the proceeds of the bonds to construction of the
replacement floating bridge, projects on the east and west ends of the bridge, and
projects on the SR 520 corridor which receive federal stimulus funds.
• Allows for the collection of tolls based on license plate photographs, creates the
process for doing so, and places authority for the collection of tolls and the issuance
of toll infractions within the Washington State Department of Transportation.
Hearing Date: 2/19/09
Staff: David Munnecke (786-7315)
Background:
The SR 520 Evergreen Point Bridge is a one and a half mile, 43-year-old bridge crossing Lake
Washington in King County. The bridge is scheduled for replacement due to its vulnerability to
seismic activity and storm events. In addition to the deteriorating physical condition, the bridge
This analysis was prepared by non partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative
members in their deliberations. This analysis is not apart of the legislation nor does it
constitute a statement of legislative intent.
House Bill Analysis - 1 - HB 2211
lacks shoulders for disabled and emergency vehicles and experiences considerable amounts of
congestion.
SR 520 Bridge Replacement Project Planning.
Legislation passed during the 2007 session directed the Office of Financial Management to hire a
mediator and appropriate planning staff to develop a project impact plan for addressing the
impacts of the project design on Seattle city neighborhoods and parks, including the Washington
park arboretum, and institutions of higher education. The final project impact plan was provided
by the December 1, 2008 delivery date, and identified the three options that are currently being
studied.
Legislation passed during the 2008 session created the SR 520 Tolling Implementation
Committee (Committee), consisting of three members, the Puget Sound Regional Council
Executive Director, the Secretary of the Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) or his or her designee, and a member of the Washington State Transportation
Commission from King County. The Committee was required to evaluate various issues relating
to the SR 520 bridge replacement project, including the form the tolling might take, traffic
diversion, tolling and traffic management technology, partnership opportunities, and also was
required to survey citizens about the project. A report was delivered from the Committee to the
Governor and Legislature in January of this year.
In that same legislation, the project design is required to have six total lanes, with four general
purpose lanes and two lanes that are for high occupancy vehicle travel and transit. The bridge
must also be designed to accommodate effective connections for transit, including high capacity
transit, to the light rail station at the University of Washington.
Lake Washington Urban Partnership.
In 2007 the WSDOT was awarded a grant from the United States Department of Transportation's
Congestion Initiative, known as the Lake Washington Urban Partnership. The grant provided
$139 million, of which $86 million was provided for active traffic management (such as traveler
information and speed harmonization) and variable tolling on the SR 520 bridge. All but $1.6
million of the grant is only accessible once a variable tolling policy has been approved, legal
authority exists for tolling to commence, and variable tolling is implemented on the SR 520
bridge project.
Toll Enforcement.
It is an infraction to refuse to pay a toll or otherwise avoid a toll at a publicly -operated toll
facility. In 2004, Substitute House Bill 2475 allowed for the detection of toll violations through
the use of a photo enforcement system. The photo enforcement system may record images of
vehicles and vehicle license plates only, and the infractions issued through such a system are not
part of the registered owners' driving records and must be processed in the same manner as
traffic infractions. The penalty for toll violation infractions issued through the use of photo
enforcement systems is set at $40, plus three times the cash toll for a standard passenger vehicle
during peak hours.
House Bill Analysis - 2 - HB 2211
Summary of Bill:
The imposition of tolls on the SR 520 corridor, which is defined as the section of SR 520
between Interstate 5 and SR 202, is authorized. The maximum toll rate in 2008 dollars is limited
to $3.25 in one direction prior to the completion of the replacement floating bridge, and $3.80 in
one direction after the completion of the replacement floating bridge. The toll rates are required
to be set to generate revenue sufficient to support the issuance of $1.2 billion in bonds as well as
operations and maintenance of the facility. The expenditure of the proceeds of the bonds is
restricted to construction of the replacement floating bridge, projects on the east and west ends of
the bridge, and projects on the SR 520 corridor which receive federal stimulus funds.
The WSDOT is designated as the state toll agency with the authority to administer the toll
collection on the SR 520 corridor, which includes the authority to:
• collect and retain toll charges and penalties;
• issue toll bills and notices of infraction;
• hold administrative hearings;
• collect unpaid tolls including forwarding unpaid infractions to the Department of
Licensing and collection agencies; and
• adjudicate disputes regarding toll charges, infractions, and penalties, except for appeals to
superior court.
The State Route 520 Corridor Account is created, and all the proceeds of the bonds issued for the
construction of the SR 520 corridor, all the tolls generated on the corridor, any interest earned on
these funds, the proceeds from the sale of surplus property used for construction on the corridor,
and any liquidated damages must be deposited into the account. These revenues may only be
used for purposes consistent with the tolling expenditure guidelines currently in statute and the
repayment of bonds.
The collection of tolls through either an electronic toll system, such as the Good to Go system, or
photo monitoring is authorized. Individuals utilizing a facility who do not have a Good to Go
account have 72 hours after crossing in which to initiate a payment on their own or they will
receive a toll bill, which may include an administrative fee and a notice of infraction as
determined by the WSDOT. If the toll bill is unpaid after 45 days, the individual is guilty of a
toll infraction, and owes an additional $40 fine.
All photo monitoring locations are required to be clearly marked, and any photographs or video
taken through the photo monitoring system must be taken of the vehicle and license plate only.
These images are not open to the public and may not be used in a court proceeding unless it is
related to toll enforcement. Likewise, the selling, distribution or making available of names and
addresses of account holders is prohibited unless otherwise required by law.
Infractions for toll violations are excluded from the owner's driving records, and any infractions
generated by the use of photo monitoring systems must be processed in the same fashion as
parking infractions. Rental car companies are provided with a specific system to deal with toll
infractions related to their vehicles wherein the company can pass along the toll to the driver of
the vehicle at the time or state under oath that the driver cannot be determined.
House Bill Analysis - 3 - HB 2211
The ability of individuals who receive a toll bill based on photo monitoring to testify under oath
that they were not in the vehicle, and thus overcome the presumption that they were in the
vehicle is eliminated.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Requested on 2/13/09.
Effective Date: The bill takes effect on January 1, 2010.
House Bill Analysis - 4 - HB 2211
H-1887.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
HOUSE BILL 2211
State of Washington 61st Legislature 2009 Regular Session
By Representatives Clibborn, Eddy, Maxwell, and Liias
Read first time 02/13/09. Referred to Committee on Transportation.
AN ACT Relating to the authorization, administration, collection,
and enforcement of tolls on the state route number 520 corridor;
amending RCW 47.56.810, 46.61.690, 46.63.030, 46.63.040, and 46.63.075;
adding new sections to chapter 47.56 RCW; adding a new section to
chapter 46.63 RCW; creating new sections; prescribing penalties; and
providing an effective date.
7 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
M.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I. TOLL AUTHORIZATION
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. It is the intent of the legislature to
impose tolls on the state route number 520 bridge to help finance
construction of critical safety projects, including replacement of the
floating bridge, and to generate additional funds to help finance
associated projects in the state route number 520 corridor program.
These associated projects include connections from Interstate 5 to the
floating bridge, and from the east end of the floating bridge to state
route number 202.
P. 1 HB 2211
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 47.56 RCW
under the subchapter heading "toll facilities created after July 1,
2008" to read as follows:
(1) The imposition of tolls on the state route number 520 corridor
is authorized, the state route number 520 corridor is designated an
eligible toll facility, and toll revenue generated in the corridor must
only be expended as allowed under RCW 47.56.820.
(2) The state route number 520 corridor consists of that portion of
state route number 520 between the junctions of Interstate 5 and state
route number 202.
(3)(a) In setting the toll rates for the corridor pursuant to RCW
47.56.850, the tolling authority shall not set a toll rate:
(i) Prior to the completion of the replacement state route number
520 floating bridge of greater than three dollars and twenty-five cents
in one direction in 2008 dollars; and
(ii) After the completion of the replacement state route number 520
floating bridge of greater than three dollars and eighty cents in one
direction in 2008 dollars.
(b) The tolling authority shall set the toll rates to generate
revenue sufficient to provide for:
(i) The issuance of up to one billion two hundred million dollars
in general obligation bonds; and
(ii) Costs associated with the project designated in subsection (4)
of this section that are eligible under RCW 47.56.820.
(4) The proceeds of the bonds designated in subsection (3)(a) of
this section, which together with other appropriated and identified
state and federal funds is more than sufficient to pay for pontoon
construction and the replacement of the state route number 520 floating
bridge, must be used only to fund:
(a) The construction of a replacement state route number 520
floating bridge;
(b) The construction of projects on the east and west ends of the
state route number 520 floating bridge and associated landside
improvements; and
(c) Any projects on the state route number 520 corridor for which
the state must provide funding in order to complete a project that is
otherwise funded through federal stimulus funds.
HB 2211 p. 2
1 (5) The state toll agency may carry out the construction and
2 improvements designated in subsection (4) of this section and
3 administer the tolling program on the state route number 520 corridor
4 pursuant to RCW 47.56.031, 47.56.075, and 47.56.785.
5 NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 47.56 RCW
6 under the subchapter heading "toll facilities created after July 1,
7 2008" to read as follows:
8 (1) Unless otherwise delegated, the department is the state toll
9 agency with the authority to administer the tolling program on toll
10 facilities on the state route number 520 corridor. The state toll
11 agency may (a) collect and retain any toll charges and penalties
12 imposed, (b) issue toll bills and notices of infraction as described
13 under RCW 46.63.160, (c) hold administrative hearings as authorized in
14 RCW 46.63.040, (d) use available resources to collect unpaid toll
15 charges, including forwarding unpaid infractions to the department of
16 licensing pursuant to RCW 46.20.270(3) and assigning the unpaid
17 infractions to collection agencies under RCW 19.16.500, (e) allocate
18 administrative fees and infraction charges to the toll facilities on
19 which the fees and charges were incurred, (f) adjudicate matters
20 involving toll charge disputes, infractions, and penalties internally,
21 and (g) adopt rules to govern eligible toll facility usage and
22 operations and toll collection, payment, and enforcement in the state.
23 (2) If the rules adopted under subsection (1) of this section
24 provide for the internal adjudication of tolling disputes, infractions,
25 and penalties, a person charged with a toll or infraction who is
26 aggrieved by the final decision in an internal adjudication may, within
27 ten days after written notice of the final decision, appeal that
28 decision by filing a written notice of appeal with the superior court
29 of the county in which the toll was enforced or the infraction occurred
30 and the state toll agency subject to the procedures under chapter 34.05
31 RCW.
32 NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 47.56 RCW
33 under the subchapter heading "toll facilities created after July 1,
34 2008" to read as follows:
35 A special account to be known as the state route number 520
p. 3 HB 2211
1 corridor account is created in the motor vehicle fund in the state
2 treasury.
3 (1) Deposits to the account must include:
4 (a) All proceeds of bonds issued for construction of the state
5 route number 520 corridor, including any capitalized interest;
6 (b) All of the tolls and other revenues received from the operation
7 of the state route number 520 corridor as a toll facility, to be
8 deposited at least monthly;
9 (c) Any interest that may be earned from the deposit or investment
10 of those revenues;
11 (d) Notwithstanding RCW 47.12.063, proceeds from the sale of any
12 surplus real property acquired for the purpose of building the
13 replacement state route 520 floating bridge; and
14 (e) All liquidated damages collected under any contract involving
15 the construction of the replacement state route 520 floating bridge.
16 (2) Toll charges, other revenues, and interest may be used to:
17 (a) Pay any required costs allowed under RCW 47.56.820; and
18 (b) Repay amounts to the motor vehicle fund as required.
19 (3) When repaying the motor vehicle fund, the state treasurer shall
20 transfer funds from the state route number 520 corridor account to the
21 motor vehicle fund on or before each debt service date for bonds issued
22 for the replacement state route 520 floating bridge project in an
23 amount sufficient to repay the motor vehicle fund for amounts
24 transferred from that fund to the highway bond retirement fund to
25 provide for any bond principal and interest due on that date. The
26 state treasurer may establish subaccounts for the purpose of
27 segregating toll charges, bond sale proceeds, and other revenues.
28 II. TOLL COLLECTION
29 Sec. 5. RCW 47.56.810 and 2008 c 122 s 3 are each amended to read
30 as follows:
31 The definitions in this section apply throughout this subchapter
32 unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
33 (1) "Tolling authority" means the governing body that is legally
34 empowered to set, review, and adjust toll rates. Unless otherwise
35 delegated, the transportation commission is the tolling authority for
36 all state highways.
HB 2211 p. 4
1 (2) "Eligible toll facility" ( (or"e44g�-ble—tall
2 means any portion(( -a)) of the state highway system upon which tolling
3 has been specifically identified by the legislature including, but not
4 limited to, transportation corridors, bridges, crossings, interchanges,
5 on -ramps, off -ramps, approaches, bistate facilities, and
6 interconnections between highways.
7 (3) "Toll revenue" or "revenue from an eligible toll facility"
8 means toll receipts, all interest income derived from the investment of
9 toll receipts, and any gifts, grants, or other funds received for the
10 benefit of the eligible toll facility.
11 (4) "Tolling program" means the single integrated tolling
12 operations used by all eligible toll facilities created after July 1,
13 2008, within the state, and includes both a toll collections and a toll
14 enforcement process.
15 (5) "State toll acrency" means the governing body that is legally
16 empowered to operate the tolling program including collection and
17 enforcement of tolls on eligible toll facilities.
18 (6) "Customer -initiated payment" means the payment of a photo toll,
19 plus an administrative fee, prior to the issuance of a toll bill and
20 notice of infraction.
21 (7) "Electronic toll collection system" means a system used by a
22 toll facility that works in conjunction with a customer's toll account
23 to facilitate the collection of tolls based on radio transmissions from
24 the motor vehicle and the automatic identification or classification of
25 vehicles that is then used to charge the appropriate electronic toll to
26 the customer's toll account.
27 (8) "Electronic toll" means the charge made to a customer's toll
28 account when the customer's vehicle is detected by the electronic toll
29 collection system at a toll facility. An electronic toll does not
30 include an administrative fee.
31 (9) "Photo monitoring system" means a system used by a toll
32 facility that captures license plate images of vehicles using the toll
33 facility. The system includes a vehicle sensor that may work in
34 conlunction with an electronic toll collection system and may capture
35 only the license plate image by photographing or videotaping images of
36 the license plate of a vehicle that uses a toli facility without
37 registering an electronic toll collection payment at the toll
p. 5 HB 2211
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
collection point. The state toll agency may collect and use this
information for photo toll collection
_(10) "Photo toll" means a toll assessed pursuant to the vehicle
license information gathered by a photo monitoring system A photo
toll may include an administrative fee
(11) "Toll bill and notice of infraction" means the bill sent by
the tollina agency to a customer for a photo toll plus an appropriate
administrative fee, and if unpaid after forty-five days, automatically
becomes a notice of infraction.
(12) "Customer," for toll billing purposes means the registered
owner of the vehicle who incurs a toll through the use of an eligible
toll facility.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. A new section is added to chapter 47.56 RCW
under the subchapter heading "toll facilities created after July 1,
2008" to read as follows:
(1) A toll may be collected by any system that identifies the
correct toll and collects payment. Toll collection systems may include
electronic toll collection and photo monitoring, as well as other
systems as technology becomes available.
(2) A toll facility customer may arrange for the payment of an
electronic toll through an electronic toll collection account. A
customer may pay a photo toll either through customer -initiated payment
or in response to a toll bill and notice of infraction.
(3) A customer -initiated payment must be made prior to or within
seventy-two hours of toll facility use. If payment is not received by
the state toll agency within the seventy-two hour period, the state
toll agency has sixty days from the date in which the toll was incurred
to issue a toll bill, or a toll bill and notice of infraction.
(4) A customer who receives a toll bill and notice of infraction
has forty-five days to appeal or pay the photo toll. If the photo toll
remains unpaid after the forty-five day period, the vehicle owner is
guilty of a toll infraction under RCW 46.61.690.
(5) Photo monitoring information is limited to capturing license
plates only and may only be used for toll collection, billing, and
enforcement as described in this chapter and RCW 46.63.030,
46.63.160 (6) , and 46. 63.170 (1) .
HB 2211 p. 6
1
III. TOLL ENFORCEMENT --NONPAYMENT OF TOLLS
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Sec. 7. RCW 46.61.690 and 2004 c 231 s 1 are each amended to read
as follows:
Any person who uses a toll bridge, toll tunnel, toll road, or toll
ferry, and the approaches thereto, operated by the state of Washington,
the department of transportation, a political subdivision or municipal
corporation empowered to operate toll facilities, or an entity
operating a toll facility under a contract with the department of
transportation, a political subdivision, or municipal corporation, at
the entrance to which appropriate signs have been erected to notify
both pedestrian and vehicular traffic that it is entering a toll
facility or its approaches and is subject to the payment of tolls ((e-t-
)), commits a traffic
infraction if:
(1) The person does not pay, refuses to pay, evades, or attempts to
evade the payment of such tolls when due, or uses or attempts to use
any spurious, counterfeit, or stolen ticket, coupon, token, or
electronic device for payment of any such tolls, or
(2) The person turns, or attempts to turn, the vehicle around in
the bridge, tunnel, loading terminal, approach, or toll plaza where
signs have been erected forbidding such turns, or
(3) The person refuses to move a vehicle through the toll facility
after having come within the area where signs have been erected
notifying traffic that it is entering the area where toll is
collectible or where vehicles may not turn around and where vehicles
are required to pass through the toll facility for the purpose of
collecting tolls.
Sec. 8. RCW 46.63.030 and 2007 c 101 s 1 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) A law enforcement officer, or the state toll agency, as defined
under RCW 47.56.810, in the case of toll enforcement under (d) of this
subsection, has the authority to issue a notice of traffic infraction:
(a) When the infraction is committed in the officer's presence;
(b) When the officer is acting upon the request of a law
enforcement officer in whose presence the traffic infraction was
committed;
p. 7 HB 2211
1 (c) If an officer investigating at the scene of a motor vehicle
2 accident has reasonable cause to believe that the driver of a motor
3 vehicle involved in the accident has committed a traffic infraction;
4 (d) When ( (tre) ) a photo toll and infraction ( (47a) ) are detected
5 through the use of a photo ((enfereeffie )) monitoring system under RCW
6 46.63.160; or
7 (e) When the infraction is detected through the use of an automated
8 traffic safety camera under RCW 46.63.170.
9 (2) A court may issue a notice of traffic infraction upon receipt
10 of a written statement of the officer that there is reasonable cause to
11 believe that an infraction was committed.
12 (3) If any motor vehicle without a driver is found parked,
13 standing, or stopped in violation of this title or an equivalent
14 administrative regulation or local law, ordinance, regulation, or
15 resolution, the officer finding the vehicle shall take its registration
16 number and may take any other information displayed on the vehicle
17 which may identify its user, and shall conspicuously affix to the
18 vehicle a notice of traffic infraction.
19 (4) In the case of failure to redeem an abandoned vehicle under RCW
20 46.55.120, upon receiving a complaint by a registered tow truck
21 operator that has incurred costs in removing, storing, and disposing of
22 an abandoned vehicle, an officer of the law enforcement agency
23 responsible for directing the removal of the vehicle shall send a
24 notice of infraction by certified mail to the last known address of the
25 person responsible under RCW 46.55.105. The notice must be entitled
26 "Littering --Abandoned Vehicle" and give notice of the monetary penalty.
27 The officer shall append to the notice of infraction, on a form
28 prescribed by the department of licensing, a notice indicating the
29 amount of costs incurred as a result of removing, storing, and
30 disposing of the abandoned vehicle, less any amount realized at
31 auction, and a statement that monetary penalties for the infraction
32 will not be considered as having been paid until the monetary penalty
33 payable under this chapter has been paid and the court is satisfied
34 that the person has made restitution in the amount of the deficiency
35 remaining after disposal of the vehicle.
36 Sec. 9. RCW 46.63.040 and 2002 c 237 s 20 are each amended to read
37 as follows:
HB 2211 P. 8
1 (1) All violations of state law, local law, ordinance, regulation,
2 or resolution designated as traffic infractions in RCW 46.63.020 may be
3 heard and determined by a district court, except as otherwise provided
4 in this section.
5 (2) Any municipal court has the authority to hear and determine
6 traffic infractions pursuant to this chapter.
7 (3) Any city or town with a municipal court may contract with the
8 county to have traffic infractions committed within the city or town
9 adjudicated by a district court.
10 (4) District court commissioners have the authority to hear and
11 determine traffic infractions pursuant to this chapter.
12 (5) Any district or municipal court may refer juveniles age sixteen
13 or seventeen who are enrolled in school to a youth court, as defined in
14 RCW 3.72.005 or 13.40.020, for traffic infractions.
15 (6) The boards of regents of the state universities, and the boards
16 of trustees of the regional universities and of The Evergreen State
17 College have the authority to hear and determine traffic infractions
18 under RCW 28B.10.560.
19 (7) The state toll agency, as defined under RCW 47 56 810 may hear
20 and determine toll disputes and infractions in the state of Washington
21 under chapters 47.56 and 34.05 RCW.
22 NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. A new section is added to chapter 46.63 RCW
23 to read as follows:
24 (1) For the purposes of this section:
25 (a) "Customer," for toll billing purposes, means the registered
26 owner of the vehicle who incurs a toll through the use of an eligible
27 toll facility.
28 (b) "Electronic toll" means the charge made to a customer's toll
29 account when the customer's vehicle is detected by the electronic toll
30 collection system at a toll facility. An electronic toll does not
31 include an administrative fee.
32 (c) "Electronic toll collection system" means a system used by a
33 toll facility that works in conjunction with a customer's toll account
34 and uses various communications and electronic technologies to
35 facilitate the collection of tolls based on radio transmissions from
36 the motor vehicle and the automatic identification or classification of
P. 9 HB 2211
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
vehicles from which information is used to charge the appropriate
electronic toll to the customer's toll account.
(d) "Photo monitoring system" means a system used by a toll
facility that captures license plate images of vehicles using the toll
facility. The system includes a vehicle sensor installed that may work
in conjunction with an electronic toll collection system and may
capture the license plate image by photographing or videotaping images
of the license plate of a vehicle that uses a toll facility without
registering an electronic toll collection payment at the toll
collection point. The state toll agency may collect and use this
information for photo toll collection.
(e) "Photo toll" means a toll assessed pursuant to the vehicle
license information gathered by a photo monitoring system. A photo
toll may include an administrative fee.
(f) "State toll agency" means the governing body that is legally
empowered to operate the tolling program, as defined under RCW
47.56.810, including collection and enforcement of tolls on eligible
toll facilities as defined under RCW 47.56.810.
(g) "Toll bill and notice of infraction" means the bill sent by the
state toll agency to a customer for a photo toll, plus an appropriate
administrative fee, and if unpaid after forty-five days, automatically
becomes a notice of infraction.
(2) This section applies only to toll bill and notice of
infractions issued by the state toll agency.
(3) This section does not prohibit a law enforcement officer from
issuing a notice of traffic infraction to a person in control of a
vehicle at the time a violation occurs under RCW 46.63.030(1) (a), (b),
or (c) .
(4) Toll collection systems include electronic toll collection and
photo monitoring systems.
(5) The use of a toll collection system is subject to the following
requirements:
(a) The state toll agency shall utilize and administer toll
collection systems that are simple, unified, and interoperable.
(b) To the extent practicable, the state toll agency shall avoid
the use of toll booths.
(c) The state toll agency shall set statewide standards and
HB 2211 P. 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
protocols for all toll facilities within the state, including those
toll facilities authorized by local authorities.
(d) The state toll agency may not sell, distribute, or make
available in any way, the names and addresses of electronic toll
collection system account holders, unless otherwise required to do so
by law.
(6) The use of a photo monitoring system for photo toll processing
and billing and the issuance of toll bills and notices of infraction is
subject to the following requirements:
(a) Photo monitoring systems may take photographs, digital
photographs, microphotographs, videotapes, or other recorded images of
the vehicle and vehicle license plate only.
(b) The state toll agency may issue a toll bill and notice of
infraction to customers who do not initiate toll payment within
seventy-two hours of incurring a toll. The state toll agency shall
mail a toll bill and notice of infraction within sixty days from the
date in which the customer incurs a toll charge to the registered owner
of the vehicle or to the renter of a vehicle. The state toll agency
shall include with the toll bill and notice of infraction a certificate
or facsimile of the certificate, based upon inspection of photographs,
microphotographs, videotape, or other recorded images produced by a
photo monitoring system, stating the facts supporting the toll bill and
notice of infraction. This certificate or facsimile is prima facie
evidence of the facts contained in it and is admissible in a proceeding
charging a photo toll and infraction under this chapter. The
photographs, digital photographs, microphotographs, videotape, or other
recorded images evidencing the photo toll and infraction must be
available for inspection and admission into evidence in a proceeding to
adjudicate the liability for the infraction.
(c) All photographs, digital photographs, microphotographs,
videotape, or other recorded images captured by a photo monitoring
system are for the exclusive use of the state toll agency in the
collection and billing of photo tolls and in the discharge of duties
under this section and are not open to the public and may not be used
in a court in a pending action or proceeding unless the action or
proceeding relates to a toll charge or violation under this chapter or
chapter 47.56 RCW.
P. 11 HB 2211
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
(d) All locations where a photo monitoring system is used must be
clearly marked by placing signs in locations that clearly indicate to
a driver that he or she is entering a zone where traffic laws are
enforced by a photo monitoring system.
(7) Infractions detected through the use of photo monitoring
systems are not part of the registered owner's driving record under RCW
46.52.101 and 46.52.120. Infractions generated by the use of photo
monitoring systems under this section must be processed in the same
manner as parking infractions, including for the purposes of RCW
46.16.216 and 46.20.270(3).
(8) The monetary amount due for an infraction detected through the
use of a photo monitoring system is the amount of the toll and an
administrative fee, plus a penalty of forty dollars.
(9)(a) If the registered owner of the vehicle is a rental car
business, the department of transportation or a law enforcement agency
shall, before a toll bill and notice of infraction is issued under this
section, provide a written notice to the rental car business that a
toll bill and notice of infraction may be issued to the rental car
business if the rental car business does not, within thirty days of the
mailing of the written notice, provide to the issuing agency by return
mail:
(i) A statement under oath stating the name and known mailing
address of the customer driving or renting the vehicle when the
infraction occurred; or
(ii) A statement under oath that the business is unable to
determine who was driving or renting the vehicle at the time the
infraction occurred because the vehicle was stolen at the time of the
infraction. A statement provided under this subsection must be
accompanied by a copy of a filed police report regarding the vehicle
theft.
(b) In lieu of identifying the vehicle operator, the rental car
business may pay the applicable toll and fee.
(c) Timely mailing of the statements described in (a)(i) and (ii)
of this subsection to the issuing state toll agency relieves a rental
car business of any liability under this chapter for the notice of
infraction.
(d) The state toll agency may mail a toll bill and notice of
HB 2211 p. 12
1 infraction within sixty days from the date of receipt of the statements
2 described in (a)(i) and (ii) of this subsection from a rental car
3 business to the customer identified by the rental car business.
4 Sec. 11. RCW 46.63.075 and 2005 c 167 s 3 are each amended to read
5 as follows:
6 (1) In a traffic infraction case involving an infraction detected
7 through the use of a photo ( (e F,.r.........) ) monitoring system under RCW
8 46.63.160, or detected through the use of an automated traffic safety
9 camera under RCW 46.63.170, proof that the particular vehicle described
10 in the notice of traffic infraction was in violation of any such
11 provision of RCW 46.63.160 or 46.63.170, together with proof that the
12 person named in the notice of traffic infraction was at the time of the
13 violation the registered owner of the vehicle, constitutes in evidence
14 a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle was
15 the person in control of the vehicle at the point where, and for the
16 time during which, the violation occurred.
17 (2) For infractions detected through the use of an automated
18 traffic safety camera under RCW 46.63.170 only, this presumption may be
19 overcome only if the registered owner states, under oath, in a written
20 statement to the court or in testimony before the court that the
21 vehicle involved was, at the time, stolen or in the care, custody, or
22 control of some person other than the registered owner.
23 IV. MISCELLANEOUS
24 NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. Part headings used in this act are not any
25 part of the law.
26 NEW SECTION. Sec. 13. The code reviser shall alphabetize and
27 renumber the definitions in RCW 47.56.810.
28 NEW SECTION. Sec. 14. This act takes effect January 1, 2010.
--- END ---
p. 13 HB 2211
520 Tolling Implementation Committee
Tolling Report Prepared for the
Washington State Legislature
a January 28, 2009a
4
_e
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................
520 Bridge Replacement and
HOV Program Background.........................................4
Committee Charge and Legislative Direction ..................6
Bob Drewel,
Executive Director, Puget Committee Criteria.....................................................7
Sound Regional Council
Travel Demand Model Peer Review 8
.............................. .
Committee Work Approach.........................................8
Public Engagement....................................................9
Evaluating and Comparing Toll Scenarios .....I ........I......19
Variables Examined in Toll Scenarios 21
.......................... .
Paula Hammond,
Comparing Scenarios,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 25
Washington State Secretary
of Transportation
Incentives for Transit and Carpooling .........................30
Potential Effects on
Lower -Income Bridge Users.......................................32
Opportunities to Partner with Businesses .................... 33
Advanced Tolling Technology...................................34
Active Traffic Management .... ................................. .. 35
Richard "Dick" Ford,
Washington State Mitigation Recommendations for Diversion
Transportation Commission Related to Tolling .................................................... 36
January 28, 2009
To: Governor Chris Gregoire
Members of the Washington State Legislature
It is our pleasure to submit the 520 Tolling Implementation Committee's report, in accordance with
ESHB 3096 as approved by the 2008 Washington State Legislature. The Committee was charged with
evaluating tolls as a means of financing a portion of the 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program,
engaging citizens and local and regional leadership in the evaluation, enhancing understanding of
tolling alternatives, and reporting to the Governor and Legislature in 2009. The Committee also was
charged with recommending potential mitigation measures for diversion resulting from tolls.
The Committee and its staff developed and evaluated ten scenarios with toUs on 520 or on both 520
and I-90. Four were presented to the public in the summer. Based upon the feedback received, six new
scenarios were conceived, analyzed and brought back for public review in the fall.
Extensive efforts were made to reach a broad range of people, through public meetings, online
opportunities and face-to-face discussions with local elected leaders from around Lake Washington.
16,000 people visited our website, build520.org, hundreds attended our open houses and thousands
submitted written comments and petition signatures. More than 7,800 people took our web survey and
another 1,200 participated in a random sample telephone survey. We also conferred with more than 20
local jurisdictions and spoke to civic and citizen groups.
We found great interest in the subject of funding the 520 project with tolls. Major findings include:
• Support for tolling as a way to help fund the bridge replacement.
• Support for the idea of variable tolling in which tolls vary by time of day.
• Support for full electronic tolling with transponders and no toll booths.
• Support for tolling the existing 520 bridge in 2010 when construction begins.
• Majority support for tolling I-90 in addition to 520, but strong opposition from I-90 users.
Overall findings from the scenario analysis include:
• Toll scenarios raised between $522 million and $2,457 million in bridge funding.
• Tolling 520 in 2010 raises more funds and reduces the cost of borrowin; compared to tolling in
2016.
• When tolls are in place, traffic volumes decrease and speeds improve or. tolled facilities.
• When tolls are in place, some people choose a new route, change the time of their trip, take transit
or carpool or change their destination to not cross Lake Washington.
The Committee also was asked to evaluate traffic diversion and make mitig� tion recommendations,
evaluate tolling technologies and new applications of advanced traffic technologies, and explore
opportunities to partner with the business community. These and all other findings are included in
this report or in the detailed appendices that can be found on the build520. org website. For questions
about the report, please contact David Hopkins at WSDOT by calling 206-454-1194 or e-mailing him at
hopkida@wsdot.wa.gov.
We especially would like to thank the thousands of people who participated in the process and the local
jurisdiction leaders and staff who were instrumental in the success of this of fort. We also thank you for
giving us this task and stand ready to assist you in any way in your discussions regarding tolling.
Bob Drewel, Executive Director, Puget Sound Regional Council
Paula Hammond, Washington State Secretary of Transportation
Richard "Dick" Ford, Washington State Transportation Commission
520 Tolling Implementation Committee 1 1
The 520 Tolling Implementation Committee was created by
the Washington State Legislature in 2008 to evaluate tolls as a
means of financing a portion of the 520 Bridge Replacement
and HOV Program, engage citizens and regional leadership in
the evaluation, enhance understanding of tolling alternatives,
and report to the Governor and Legislature in 2009.
The existing State Route 520 bride structures across Lake
Washington and Portage Bay are vulnerable to earthquakes
and windstorms and need to be replaced. In 2008, the
Legislature asked for an evaluation of toll scenarios that could
produce $1.5 to $2.0 billion in financing.
The Committee and its staff developed and evaluated ten
scenarios with tolls on 520 or tolls on both 520 and I-90. The
Committee initially evaluated four scenarios, and collected
extensive public and local jurisdictional input on those
results. That input helped staff develop an additional six
scenarios for evaluation. The Committee then re-engaged the
public and local jurisdictions wits results for all ten scenarios.
It now reports all findings to the Governor and Legislature.
Lake Washington and surrounding highways
Overall Findings From Public Engagement
As requested by the Legislature, the Committee and its staff led a public outreach and
input -gathering effort in conjunction with the tolling analysis and evaluation process.
Thousands of people participated directly by attending Committee meetings or public
open houses, visiting the website, taking part in a web survey or writing to the Committee.
A random sample, statistically -valid telephone survey was also conducted. Committee
members and staff met regularly with jurisdictions, technical staff and other stakeholder
groups to understand their concerns and aspirations related to tolling. The Committee
found the following:
• Generally, people support tolling, and support tolling the existing 520 bridge in 2010
(59 percent in web survey and 64 percent in phone survey).
• The phone survey showed that most people support the idea of tolling I-90 in
addition to 520, although most users of I-90—in particular Mercer Island residents—
...................
S
are opposed to this concept. Support increases among I-90 users if toll revenue is
used for I-90 improvements.
• Among those who support tolling, variable tolling is also supported as a way to
The Committee aimed to
provide guidance on a key
reduce congestion and improve traffic conditions. Those who oppose the overall
question: "Ilow can fimding
concept of tolling also oppose variable tolling.
be secured for the new 520
• Electronic tolling is also supported. Most people appear to understand the connection
bridge under the best terms
between electronic tolling (no toll booths needed) and improving traffic flow. Some
for taxpayers, bridge users and
did ask questions about logistics associated with electronic tolling.
adjacent communities?"
2 1 520 Tolling Implementation Committee
Overall Findings from Scenario
Analysis
Financial capacity
The toll scenarios examined raise between
$522 million and $2,457 million in corridor funding
from tolls. The most a 520-only scenario raised
was $1.5 billion. Most scenarios that toll both 520
and 1-90 raised more than $2.0 billion.
• Only one 520-only scenario met the low end
of the Legislative target ($1.5 billion).
• All two -bridge scenarios (520 and I-90) met
the Legislative target and four of five scenarios
exceeded the high end ($2.0 billion).
Begin tolling in 2010 vs. 2016
Tolling 520 in 2010 raises more funds
and may reduce the cost of borrowing
compared to tolling 520 in 2016.
• Tolling starting in 2010 enables use of $154 million
in federal funds from the USDOT Urban Partnership
Agreement. There would be $86 million available for
tolling and active traffic management infrastructure.
An additional $41 million would be used to
buy transit coaches in the corridor. $27 million
would be available in funds for ferries.
Traffic conditions with tolling
• When tolls are in place, volumes go down
and speeds improve on the tolled facility.
• If tolls are placed on both bridges, traffic volumes
go down and speeds improve on both bridges.
Speeds decrease on alternate routes. This
decrease, however, is less than the speed
improvements on the tolled routes.
Diversion due to tolls
People may change their travel choices to take
transit, carpool, or vanpool; shift the time of
day of their trip; or change their destination.
Some people do change their route, but the
overall effect of those route changes tends to be
distributed across the transportation system.
Diversion is reduced by existing congestion
levels, limited alternate routes and resulting lack
of time savings from using another route.
In addition to these findings, the Committee is also
providing the Legislature with requested research
into advanced tolling technologies; new technologies
for managing traffic; opportunities to partner with
businesses; and potential traffic mitigation opportunities.
Appendices listed below contain additional details
and analysis for all topics and are available on disk
and on the Committee's ,vebsite (build520.org).
Mitigation Recommendations
ESHB 3096 requested the Committee recommend
mitigation measures associated with potential
diversion resulting from tolling. The Committee
is recommending a two-part approach.
In Part 1, keeping traffic on 520 is the priority.
The intent is to manage toll levels to keep
people on the 520 bridge while also meeting
revenue expectations. This can be accomplished
through variable tolling, ;dentifying funds to provide
transit service and working with employers to reduce
congestion. Ultimately, the new 520 bridge, with
its expanded capacity, will keep traffic on 520.
Part 2 includes recommendations targeted to the five
locations most likely affe .-ted by potential diversion (522,
I-90, I-405, I-5 and the University area) as found in traffic
diversion analysis. Mitigation measures could include
system -wide instrumentation and traffic monitoring,
electronic driver information signs (particularly for
the 522 corridor), advanced traffic technology, transit
expansion and coordinator for new service, and related
projects such as new or expanded park -and -rides.
0 ...............................................
Appendices available on disk and on the website:
Volume 1:
A: Legislation - ESHB 3096
B: Outreach Events and ;Materials
C: Travel Demand Modeling and Financial Analysis
D: Travel Demand Model Peer Review
E: Active Traffic Management
F: Toll Collection Technology
G: Mitigation Recommendations for Diversion
H: Discussions on I-90
Volume 2:
I: Public Comments
• Letters from jurisdictions
• Summaries of public comment
• All public comments• received
520 Tolling Implementation Committee 13
replacement520 bridge
,:
HOV program background
State Route 520 is one of two east -west highways across
Lake Washington. Approximately 158,000 people cross
the 520 floating bridge (Evergreen Point Bridge) each day,
traveling in some 115,000 vehicles.
Built in 1963, the Evergreen Point Bridge and the
Portage Bay Bridge are vulnerable to windstorms and
earthquakes. A collapse of these bridges or their approach
structures could cause serious injury or loss of life, and
would overwhelm all major regional highways with re-
routed traffic. 520 is also a crucial and often congested
corridor between job centers and growing communities
around Lake Washington. The existing corridor is heavily
congested during morning and afternoon commute times.
The 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program will
replace all existing bridges, including the Portage Bay
Bridge and Evergreen Point floating bridge, with new, safer
bridges that are designed to withstand earthquakes and
windstorms. Commuters will benefit from better transit
reliability and improved travel times between Seattle and
the Eastside.
Construction of bridge pontoons will begin in 2009. The
new 520 bridge is scheduled to open in 2014 with four
lanes. When the bridge and corridor are complete in 2016,
there will be six lanes; four general purpose, two HOV, a
bike/pedestrian path, and shoulders.
Top: 520 bridge mid -span during
windstorm
Top right: 520 bridge approach to
west high-rise
Bottom right: Portage Bay Bridge
. For more information: www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr520bridge
4 1 520 Tolling Implementation Committee
Funding a New 520 Bridge
Funding the
The project cost was estimated in April 2008 at between $3.7 and $3.9 billion.
Existing 520 Bridge
A combination of federal funds, state gas tax funds and tolls were expected to pay
Tolls paid for the existing
for the project.
520 bridge. When it
opened to drivers in 1963,
In November 2008, WSDOT released updated cost estimates that show the overall
the popularity of the bridge
program costs have increased. These revised costs include estimates for each of the three
allowed the bonds to be
alternatives currently being considered by the 520 mediation group. Once agreement is
paid off ahead of schedule.
reached on a preferred alternative for the project, WSDOT will update the cost estimate
and finance plan. The Committee's work was based on the project estimates of costs and
August 1963:
funding sources as of April 2008, and the Legislative target established in ESHB 3096.
Car toll ......... ..........$0.35
The results are reported against that baseline estimate.
2007 dollars ........... .$2.48
4-axle truck toll _ _$1.00
Figure 1. Anticipated fundingsources identified by
2007 dollars ........... .$7.08
Legislature in ESHB 3096
Federal Bridge Funds
$114 M
June 1979:
Car toll ...................$0.35
State Gas Tax
2007 dollars..,,,,,.,,, .$1.05
11A;�
Car with 3 or more people
toll ..........................$0.10
2007 dollars..,,,.,,,,, ,$0.30
Tolling
$2,00:1,M (between $1.5 and
4-axle truck toll ........,$1.00
Other Program $1,072 M $2.0 billion)
2007 dollars..............$3.01
Federal Funds (Risk Pool)
Note: I tistorical inflation
based upon U.S. Consumer
Price Index For all urban
consumers.
Project estimate as of April 2008 was $3.7 billion - $3.9 billion
(Low end of range reflects $180 million in sales tax deferral)
. ...................
Previous and Future Finance Plan Work
In January 2008, WSDOT presented the 2007 SR 520 Finance Plan to the Governor and
Urban Partnership
Legislature. The finance plan examined the funding potential from tolls under a number
Agreement Funds
of scenarios looking at tolling 520 only and discussed the financial shortfall facing the
Tolling and Active Traffic
project. WSDOT is preparing a new financial plan for the 2009 Legislative session.
Management
million
Irhe 520 corridor is also part of an USDOT Urban Partnership Agreement. The Urban
,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,$86
Partnership Agreement is a federal grant that provides $154 million for variable tolling
Transit/Park-and-Rides
infrastructure on 520, the purchase of 45 buses to serve the corridor, and funding for
.......................$41 million
ferries in the Puget Sound region. Funding to operate the buses needs to be identified
and secured. Under terms of the Agreement, the State Legislature must authorize variably
Ferry Projects
tolling on 520 in 2009 to secure the remaining $136 million in pending grant funds.
..................••. •$27 million
520 Tolling Implementation Committee 15
S20 mid -spun and east high-rise
f'. 1W.
520 Tolling Implementation Committee
The 520 Tolling Implementation Committee was created by the State Legislature in
2008 (ESHB 3096). The Committee is composed of: Bob Drewel, Executive Director
of the Puget Sound Regional Council, who served as Chairman, Washington State
Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond and Washington State Transportation
Commissioner Richard "Dick" Ford.
The Committee was charged with evaluating tolling for financing the 520 Bridge
Replacement and HOV Program, engaging citizens and regio ial leadership in the
evaluation, enhancing understanding of tolling alternatives, and reporting to the
Governor and the State Legislature in January 2009.
The act recognizes that $1.5 to $2.0 billion in funding from toll revenue may be required
to secure financing for the project. Different approaches to tolling have implications for
state resources already secured for the project, toll payers, adjacent communities and the
wider region.
The act charges the Committee with:
• Evaluating the potential diversion of traffic from 520 to other parts of the
transportation system, including 522 and local roadways and recommending
mitigation measures.
• Evaluating advanced tolling technology.
• Evaluating new applications of emerging technology to better manage traffic.
• Exploring opportunities to partner with the business community to reduce
congestion and financially contribute to the project.
• Conferring with mayors and city councils of jurisdictions adjacent to 520, 522 and
1-90.
• Conducting public work sessions and open houses.
• Providing a report to the Governor and Legislature by January 2009.
The Committee was specifically charged with engaging citizens on the following topics:
• Funding a portion of the 520 project with tolls on the existing bridge.
• Funding the 520 project and improvements on the I-90 bridge with a toll paid by
drivers on both bridges.
• Providing incentives and choices for transit and carpooling.
• Implementing variable tolling as a way to reduce congestion.
6 1 520 Tolling Implementation Committee
Evaluation Criteria for Scenario Analysis
Prior to the first round of analysis, the Committee established a set of evaluation criteria.
These criteria, their significance, and relevant data sources are included in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Descriptions of evaluation criteria.
How much revenue Expected financial capacity from each : The Office of the State Treasurer estimated
(financial capacity) is toll scenario. the finance capacity for each toll scenario.
generated and when?
flow revenue generation meshes with
cash flow needs of bridge replacement.
Are the tolls "reasonable"?
Different toll rates have different effects
i Toll rates were determined for each toll
on diverted traffic, financial capacity,
: scenario by time of day and weekday or
and bridge performance, and may seem
: weekend.
more or less reasonable to travelers.
The average toll for each scenario was
estimated based on 24-hour traffic volumes.
What are the diversion
If people choose not to pay a bridge
The diversion effects were calculated for
effects of a bridge toll?
toll, they may choose a different time
:each scenario and time period (peak and
of day, mode (i.e. transit or carpool),
off-peak) for weekday travel on 520, I-90,
route, or destination.
: I-405, and 522, and local anerials around
Lake Washington.
How do tolls affect the
i Tolling, especially variable tolling that
For each scenario, performance was
performance of the
is based on time of day, can improve
:expressed as the increase or decrease in
bridge(s)?
i traffic flow.
average speeds for selected facilities at peak
and off-peak times.
What effects might a toll
Lower -income bridge users may be
: A survey by the 520 project team examined
have on lower -income
disproportionately impacted by tolls.
the attitudes of lower -income bridge users
bridge users?
about tolling 520.
Social servic., and educational institutions
were contacted for their views on how
i tolling might affect their clients/students.
5,20 Tolling Implementation Committee 1 7
travel demand model peer revi,,Ov!
At its first public meeting in June 2008, the Committee
requested an independent peer review of the Puget Sound
Regional Council's regional travel demand model used to
analyze the toll scenarios. The peer review team was led
by Dr. Yoram Shiftan, a University of Michigan visiting
professor with extensive experience in travel demand
modeling.
The peer review team concluded that the travel demand
model used is comparable to the best in the nation, and
noted that new elements incorporated in recent years
have significantly improved the model's ability to analyze
variable tolling.
The Committee used the schedule and work program
shown in Figure 3, aiming to evaluate scenarios, engage
the public, re-evaluate scenarios, engage the public again,
and report all findings to the Legislature.
The Committee had a two-part approach to public
outreach. The four initial scenarios were selected by the
Committee in June 2008. Based on the public outreach
and comment on the first four scenarios, a number of
other possible new scenarios or variations were suggested
to the Committee.
2008
The peer review team recommended slightly modifying
the model to address high destination diversion (trips not
crossing Lake Washington), improve model consistency,
and look at results in more detail and with additional
model runs using different assumptions. Detailed
recommendations are includcd in Appendix D. Several
suggestions were incorporated in the model and were
applied to all toll scenarios in September 2008.
In September 2008, the Committee selected six new
scenarios and directed staff to present results in November
and launch the second round of public outreach including
telephone and web surveys.
The Committee also directed staff to rerun the first
four scenarios so that refinements to the regional travel
demand model suggested by the independent peer review
panel would be applied to all the scenarios. All the
scenarios were updated and assessed for financial capacity
by the Office of the State Treasurer.
2009
June July August September October November December January February
Evaluate IEvaluate Report J
• Ongoing • Hold public meetings
• Ongoing 520 Tolling
• Ongoing 520 Tolling
520 Tolling and gather input
Implementation Committee
Implementation
Implementation on initial tolling
meetings
Committee
Committee scenarios
• Based on public input,
meetings
meetings
evaluate additional tolling
• Present refined
• Analyze and
scenarios
findings on tolling
present initial
scenarios
tolling scenario
•Gather public input
estimates
Public work sessions and public meetings
Publit comment period 2nd round I ublic engagement; launch opinion survey
Report development Submit report to
Legislature
2009 Legislative Session
Figure 3. S20 Tolling Implementation Committee work program and schedule.
8 1 520 Tolling Implementation Committee
The Committee's goal was to engage the public in open and transparent discussion of
tolling, based upon the data related to the various scenarios studied. There were two
rounds of engagement. Four tolling scenarios were presented in July. Based upon the
input received, revisions to the initial four scenarios were made, five new scenarios were
analyzed, and results of the revisions and new scenarios were introduced to the public
in November. Analysis of the tenth scenario (high -occupancy toll lanes on I-90) was
completed in December.
The Committee was specifically charged with engaging citizens on the following topics:
• Funding a portion of the 520 project with tolls on the existing bridge.
• Funding the 520 project and improvements on the I-90 bridge with a toll paid by
drivers on both bridges.
• Providing incentives and choices for transit and carpooling.
• Implementing variable tolling as a way to reduce congestion.
The Committee's meetings and open houses were well publicized on radio, television,
and major daily and local newspapers. More than forty news stories were generated by
the Committee's work. Paid advertising in newsprint and media websites promoted
the Committee's open houses and public engagement opportunities. King County
Metro announced both rounds of open houses with flyers on all 1,300 of its buses. The
Committee also sent e-mail or postcard notices to more than 19,000 people on lists
maintained by WSDOT for the 520 project.
Between June and December 2008, thousands of people participated in the discussion of
these topics using a variety of outreach methods. Public outreach events and activities a -e
outlined here and a complete list is included in Appendix B.
0 ...................
By the Numbers
• 16,000 visited the
build520.org website
• 7,800 participated in
the web survey
• More than 8,000
wrote comments
• More than 700 people
attended at least one of
the nine open houses
• More than 1,000
participated in a
Sierra Club postcard
campaign
• More than 3,300
signed a petition from
"No Toll on I-90"
expressing opposition
to tolling 1-90
................... 0
The 520 Tolling Implementation
Committee at theirJuly 10
meeting
5J-0 Tolling Implementation Committee 19
key findingss 4x,..r
The entire body of comments and survey results has been summarized by issues the
Legislature directed the Committee to research and by the Committee's evaluation criteria
for toll scenarios. Survey results referenced below can be found on page 17.
Input Sought by the Legislation
• Funding a portion of the 520 replacement project with tolls on the existing bridge
The majority (58 percent) of respondents to a statistically -valid phone survey
conducted in November 2008 supported tolling the existing bridge in 2010 if it
results in lower tolls and financing costs. Many public comments supported tolling
on the existing bridge (in 2010), particularly if tolling reduces out-of-pocket costs to
drivers and improves traffic. In the phone survey, support was less if tolling causes
speeds on 1-90 to decrease. Among written comments, support for tolling in general
was a common response, but so was opposition to any tolling, or concerns about
costs to the public.
• Funding the 520 replacement project and improvements on the I-90 Bridge with a
toll paid by drivers on both bridges
The majority (65 percent) of phone survey respondents supported tolling I-90,
though less than half of 1-90 users were supportive of the idea. Tolling both bridges
was supported by many comments, but was largely opposed by 1-90 users. There
is also strong opposition to tolling I-90 from many Mercer Island residents, and a
"No Toll on I-90" group organized a petition opposing the idea. Among I-90 users,
slightly more than half were supportive of the idea of tolling I-90 when they learned
that toll revenue would also be used to support improvements on 1-90.
• Providing incentives and choices for transit and carpooling
Nine percent of statistically -valid phone survey respondents said they would take
transit if there was a toll on 520. Many respondents felt providing improved transit
service was important if tolling is implemented, and some suggested transit as a
mitigation for lower -income bridge users. A postcard campaign organized by the
Sierra Club identified transportation choices as a priority use for toll revenue.
• Implementation of variable tolling as a way to reduce congestion
Variable tolling is supported as a way to reduce congestion and improve traffic
conditions, with more than two-thirds of phone survey respondents supporting it.
Electronic tolling (no toll booths) increases support for tolling on the bridge.
Evaluation Criteria
• How much revenue is generated and when
Public comments show a general trend toward generating revenue sooner, in 2010,
rather than later, in 2016, particularly if this results in lower toll rates for travelers.
• The "reasonableness" of the toll
Few directly commented on the "reasonableness" of toll rates. Some said that toll
rates of $3 or more were too high, others recommended rates ranging from $0.50 to
$2. Among those who opposed tolling, some said that the annual cost to their family
would be too high given the proposed rates.
• The diversion effects of a bridge toll
Many respondents and jurisdictions were concerned with the diversion effects of a
bridge toll. Communities north and south of Lake Washington were concerned about
diversion around the lake, while those on the east and west sides were concerned
about diversion to neighborhood streets as a result of segment tolling.
10 1 520 Tolling Implementation Committee
0 ...................
Definitions
for Tolling
Variable Tolling: Toll rates
that vary by time of day.
Segment Tolling:
Drivers pay a partial toll
for using just a portion
of a tolled route (such
as trips between I-5 and
Montlake in Seattle).
Electronic Tolling:
Collecting tolls without
the use of toll booths,
generally with an
electronic transponder,
so drivers do not need
to slow down or stop.
HOT (high -occupancy
toll) Lanes: Offer an
option for non-HOV
drivers to use the HOV
(high -occupancy vehicle)
lanes for a fee. Toll
rates change with traffic
levels to ensure that
cars in the lane move at
or above a set speed.
Dynamic Tolling: Toll
rates change with traffic
levels to ensure that
traffic moves at or above
a set speed. HOT lanes
use dynamic tolling.
................... 0
• The performance of the bridge
2010 or 2016—
Most respondents appear to understand the connection between variable tolling an.i
Now We Chose
improved traffic flow; however, the need for bridge replacement and concerns abou
These Years
traffic on roadways approaching the bridge were mentioned more often than bridge
performance.
2010 was selected
• The effects a toll may have on lower -income bridge users
because that is when 520
construction begins. 2016
Many respondents were concerned with potential impacts to lower -income bridge
was selected because that
users, with some suggestions that lower -income bridge users be exempt from tolls.
is the vear construction is
Many respondents suggested that increased transit options should be provided for
expected to be completed.
those unable to pay the toll or that a free alternate route should always be available.
0 ...................
outreachevents
Local Elected
Leaders
Conferred With:
Outreach to Mayors and Councils
Puget Sound Regional
Council Boards and
The Committee was charged with conferring with leadership from adjacent jurisdictions
Committees
and conducting extensive outreach with local and regional elected officials from around
Lake Washington. An overview is below, and a detailed list is in Appendix B.
Subarea Transportation
Several jurisdictions provided letters, touching on the following general issues:
Forums
• Diversion and traffic congestion
• Eastside TransportationPartnership
• Toll exemptions and effects on bridge users
. South King County
• Transit service and capacity
Area Transportation
• Use of toll revenue
Board (SCATBd)
• Timing of tolling implementation
• SeaShore
Transportation Forum
An overview of comments from each jurisdiction is included in Figure 4 on pages 13-15
Many jurisdictions in similar areas shared concerns. Grouped by geography, major themes
Cities
and Counties:
include:
•
Bellevue
Bothell
• North - concerns about diversion to 522 and the further•
deterioration of traffic
conditions.
Clyde bill
•
1 funts Point
• East - concerns about diversion to local arterials and streets; lack of park -and -rides;
.
Issaquah
lack of adequate transit service.
Kenmore
• South - need to see I-405 improvements completed to keep traffic moving.
0
King County
• West - diversion to local routes.
0
Kirkland
• Mercer Island - concerns about charging tolls to Mercer Island residents who travel
0
Lake Forest Park
off -island for many services.
0
Mercer Island
•
Medina
Outreach to Legislators
•
Newcastle
As part of the Committee's efforts, Legislators from districts in and near the 520 and I-90
0Redmond
bridges received the media updates from the Committee, as did all the members of the
•
Renton
House and Senate Transportation Committees. Members of House and Senate leadership
•
Sammamish
were also invited to Committee briefings. Various Legislators attended open houses or
•
Seattle
other community meetings.
•
Yarrow Point
521 Tolling Implementation Committee 111
Before the release of results from the first four scenarios in July and the nine scenarios in .
...................
November, Legislators were invited to a briefing on the results. An e-mail notification of
the findings was also distributed to the Legislators noted above and staff was available to As a result Of
provide briefings or answer questions. meeting with
Committee staff also made a formal presentation to the House Transportation local jurisdictions,the Committee
Committee in Olympia on September 11, 2008 and on August 12, 2008 the Committee received letters
members presented the results of the initial scenario analysis to the Joint Transportation
Committee. from:
•
City of Bellevue
Washington State Transportation Commission
•
City of Bothell (2)
Committee staff made presentations to the Washington State Transportation
•
City of Clyde Hill
Commission. Staff presented the results of the initial scenarios to the Commission at its
.
City of Issaquah
October 22, 2008 meeting. Results of public outreach, including the statistically -valid
telephone survey and the web survey were presented on December 17, 2008.
•
City of Kirkland
•
Cities of Lake Forest
Park, Kenmore,
Business and Civic Outreach
Woodinville and
The Committee was charged with outreach to the business community as one of the key
King County
stakeholders. 520 connects some of the region's most vibrant and important job centers,
Councilmember Bob
including downtown Redmond, the Overtake area in Redmond that is home to Microsoft,
Ferguson (2)
the University of Washington and downtown Seattle. It also provides vital access to
0
City of Lake Forest Park
downtown Bellevue and to businesses in the city of Kirkland.
•
City of Medina
Committee members spoke before a number of business groups to inform them of
0
City of Mercer Island
the work of the Committee and to ask for their input. These included the board of
(5)
the Bellevue Chamber of Commerce, the Transportation Committee of the Greater
City of Newcastle
Seattle Chamber of Commerce, the Freight Mobility Roundtable, and the Mercer Island
Chamber of Commerce. The Bellevue Chamber submitted a formal comment letter to the
City of Redmond (2)
Committee that is included in Appendix 1.
0
City of Renton (3)
Staff for the Committee spoke to both the Redmond and Mercer Island Rotary Clubs
•
City of Seattle
about tolling on 520 and I-90. Committee members Paula Hammond and Dick Ford
0City
of Shoreline
conferred with Mark Emmert, President of the University of Washington.
0
King County
Department of
Transportation (2)
Website
The Committee used a website, www.build520.org, as one way to communicate with
•
Mercer Island School
citizens. The website included up-to-date information about toll scenarios and analysis,
District (2)
as well as all Committee materials, and an online comment form, e-mail and mail
•
Mercer Island Mayor
addresses. The website received more than 16,000 unique visitors and more than 85,000
.
Seashore
page views between June and December 2008.
Transportation Forum
•
South County Area
Open Houses
Transportation Board
Nine open houses were held throughout the corridor communities to present results of
•
Town of Hunts Point
tolling scenarios and ask for public views, questions, and opinions. Six open houses were
.
Town of Y.irrow Point
held in July and August and three in November. More than 700 people attended the open
houses. The Committee received more than 400 comments from people attending the
Town of Beaux Arts
open houses.
•
Washington State
Treasurer
See Appendix I.
...................
.
12 1 520 Tolling Implementation Committee
Comments from Local Jurisdictions
This chart highlights city and county comments regarding tolling 520 and/or I-90, as
well as their concerns about potential diversion. It should be noted that nearly all cities
had comments beyond diversion and mitigation issues, which provided meaningful
comments and input. Among the common issues was opposition to "segment" tolls -
tolls collected on the highways leading to the bridge - because of the potential for greater
diversion to local streets and arterials. All letters are included in Appendix I.
Figure 4. Local jurisdictional comments
Jurisdiction/
Toll 520 in
Toll •0
Diversion
Mitigation
Town of Beaux Arts
: Toll 520 and I-90 at the same time;
Village
toll revenue should be used for
(Town Council)
capital improvements in the corridor,
operations and maintenance and for
early mitigation of impacts to local
roadways; don't use toll revenues for
transit
City of Bellevue
Support only if
Prefer tolling
Minimize
(Mayor)
it allows early
only 520; if
diversion to
completion of
more funds
local roadways
project, and
needed, seek
provides a
;other state or
lower toll for
federal sources;
users
: toll I-90 only
when R-8A
improvements
are in place,
and at a lower
i rate than 520
City of Bothell
Concern
: ImproN e transit service and capacity;
(Council and
about 522 and
improve park -and -ride facilities; add
Mayor)
neighborhood
capacity to 522; use toll revenues for
streets
mitigation; concern about potential
for hazardous materials to move
throug;t city streets; seek $20 million
commitment to assist with 522
corridcr improvements; want 100th
Ave and Juanita Drive added to traffic
monitoring; want variable message
signs and EIS for tolling
City of Clyde Hill;
: Support
Support
Concern about
'• Toll revenue should be used for
Town of Hunts
diversion to
capital improvements in the corridor,
Point;
local roadways
operations and maintenance and for
City of Medina;
; early rr itigation of impacts to local
Town of Yarrow
roadways; don't use toll revenues for
Point
transit
(Mayors)
521) Tolling Implementation Committee 113
Figure 4. Local jurisdictional comments
Jurisdiction/
Toll t in
Toll•t
Diversion
Mitigation
Agencyt
t
comments
City of Issaquah
Support
: Maintain a free
Concerns about Want transit improvements at I-90/18;
(Council)
or low cost
: 1-405 diversion
: efficient toll collection system and
option on I-90;
good public education are important
consider HOT
lane; toll only
after diversion
to I-405 is
mitigated
City of Kirkland
: Support
Support
Reasonable uses of toll revenue
(Council)
include: construction and transit
service on tolled route or parallel
facilities; mitigation of diversion;
operations and maintenance of tolled
facilities; tolls should not replace
current revenue sources; concern
about needs of lower -income drivers
Mercer Island
: Oppose; or
: 53 percent of employees commute
School District
provide a free
eastbound; 47 percent commute
(Superintendent)
option
: westbound on I-90
City of Mercer
: Support tolls
: Oppose tolls
Highlights city's rights according to
Island
at a low rate
' on travel to and
I-90 Memorandum of Agreement;
(Council and
to discourage
from Mercer
does not want traffic to or from Mercer
Mayor)
diversion to
Island on 1-90,
:Island to be tolled; desires mitigation
I-90
the only access
if access is decreased; wants tolls to
route to and
be used on facility where collected;
from Mercer
analyze tolling I-405 and 1-5; wants
Island
financial information on revenues
collected if Mercer Island u-affic is not
tolled; says exempting Mercer Island
traffic from tolls does not diminish
capacity to fund 520
Mayors of Cities
Concern about
Improve transit capacity and transit
of Lake Forest
: diversion to
service; add park -and -rides: add
Park; Kenmore;
522
capacity to 522, 202, and Woodinville -
Woodinville and
Duvall Roa 1; use toll revenues to fund
King County
transit
Councilmember
Bob Ferguson
14 1 520 Tolling Implementation Committee
Figure 4. Local jurisdictional comments
• •n/
Toll 520 in
Toll• 1 Diversion Mitigation• • other
Agency
2010
comments
City of Lake Forest
: Only with
Concern about ' Add transit capacity; increase transit
Park
monitoring
diversion to service; add park -and -ride capacity;
(Mayor and
of real time
522 add community circulator vans;
Council)
changes to 522
implement a traffic monitoring and
reporting program to measure real-
time changes
City of Newcastle
Oppose Cover 520 costs at least expense to
(Mayor and
users; concern about potential delays
Councilmember)
to 1-405 and R-8A projects
City of Redmond
: Yes
Best scenario MitigaJon recommendation is
(Council and Staff)
' to fully fund reasonable; concerns about lower-
520 and related income, households and tolls;
improvements want fi eight impacts analyzed; use
revenues for 520 and I-90 capital and
maintenance expenses only
City of Renton
Concern about Complete 1-405 improvements;
(Mayor and
diversion to city support basic concepts of mitigation
Council)
arterials recommendations as applied to I-405
and parallel north -south corridors;
consider transit improvements on all
impacted corridors
City of Seattle
Support
Support Toll revenues should be used for
(Council)
transit; consider reducing vehicle miles
traveled; tolling should be systematic
to reduce congestion throughout the
region
City of Shoreline
Improi e 523 (145th) in Shoreline to
(Council)
mitigale transit and traffic impacts;
impro\ e I-5 near 523; improve
pedestrian connections at I-5 and 523;
use toll revenue to fund transit service
King County DOT
: Support
Support Support using toll revenues for
(Director)
: transit, including funds for operating
UPA service; seek $6 to $8 million
in mitigation funds for increased
operational costs due to loss of
Montlake fiver stop; mitigation
account should be available to fund
transit operations and capital costs
52:) Tolling Implementation Committee 1 15
iT Jy X
tBiMatW6d'Wp R�bd�,1eb•Nwie iWRpNr Ws _ — _._..
_�J.--- _ _. _ � hw.lmi J •tMawM�. � Otl•:1ja!lbJtivaaf._ �'�/�rldaa�—. a
Web Survey
After the release of the second round of tolling scenarios, the Committee also hosted
an online survey November 10-30, 2008. The purpose was to provide a formal way for
people to provide input, whether or not they could attend a meeting. The web survey
also served as the primary comment tool for the second round of open houses. Through
web banner ads in select media outlets and e-mail distribution lists, more than 7,800
individuals filled out some or all of the web survey. The web survey was also sent to more
than 700 workplaces in King County with more than 100 employees. This tool should not
be considered statistically -valid, as respondents are self-selected. Highlights are included
in Figure 5.
Phone Survey
In November 2008, the Committee also conducted a random sample statistically -valid
telephone survey of 1,200 people that included four groups of participants: people who
use I-90, people who use 520, people who use both bridges and people who use neither
bridge. The intent was to evaluate the validity of input the Committee was receiving, and
to compare the web survey and statistically -valid phone survey.
The results of the web and phone surveys were similar in most cases. They show support
for:
• Using tolls to help fiend the new 520 bridge
• Electronic tolling
• Variable tolling
Both surveys show that people are supportive of tolling in 2010 if it reduces out-of-pocket
costs and if it improves traffic. Highlights are included in Figure 5.
16 1 520 Tolling Implementation Committee
Left: Screenshot of the homepage
for build520.org
Above: Open house attendees
review tolling scenarios
0 ...................
Committee Open
Houses
July 29, Bothell
July 31, Renton
Aug 5, Seattle
Aug 6, Bellevue
Aug 7, Kirkland
Aug 13, Mercer Island
Nov 12, Bellevue
Nov 13, Seattle
Nov 17, Mercer Island
Tolling
Implementation
Committee
Meetings
June 17, Seattle
July 10, Seattle
July 23, Bellevue
Aug 12, Seattle
Sept 11, Lake Forest Park
Sept 30, Kirkland
Nov 10, Redmond
Dec 12, Mercer Island
Jan 8, Seattle
Jan 28, Seattle
Web and Phone Survey Highlights
The phone survey was a random sample, statistically -valid survey of 1,204 participants with a three percent margin of
error. The survey was conducted during November 2008, and included four sub -groups of respondents: 520 users, I-90
users, users of both bridges and people who don't use either bridge.
The web survey was also conducted in November 2008. The 7,800 respondents were self-selected and results should not
be considered statistically valid even though the findings are similar to the random sample phone survey.
Figure 5. Web and phone survey highlights.
Respondents..•
Support tolling to help fund new
Nearly 2:1 margin
More than 2:1 margin (64% to 30%)
520 bridge.
(59% to 30%)
Highest support from non -bridge users at 67%.
• Lowest support from 1-90 users at 60%.
Support for tolling 520 increases
69%
73%0
when respondents learn about
electronic tolling and "no toll
. Highest support from 520 users at 78%.
booths:'
• Lowest support from non -bridge users at 69%.
Respondents support variable
More than 2:1
More than 2:1 margin (70% to 27%)
tolling,
margin
. Highest support from 520 users at 73%.
(65% to 31 %)
• Lowest
support from I-90 users at 66%.
Respondents support tolling in
Nearly 3:1 margin
Less than 2:1 margin (58% to 36%)
2010 if it results in lower tolls and
(60% to 23%)
. Highest support from non -bridge users at 59%.
financing costs.
• Lowest support from users of both bridges at
55%.
Support goes down for tolling in
55%
51%
2010 if it makes 520 faster, but
. Highest support from 520 users at 56%.
Slows down I-90.
• Lowest support from I-90 users at 47%.
Support for tolling both bridges
61%
61%
goes up (but not among I-90
. Highest support from 520 users at 75%.
users) if it makes speeds go up
on both bridges.
Lowest support from I-90 users at 47%.
Support for tolling both bridges
61%
61%
goes up (but not among I-90
Highest support from 520 users at 73%.
users) If toll rates are lower than
just tolling 520.
. Lowest support from 1-90 users at 47%.
Support for tolling both bridges
64%
65%
goes up among 1-90 users when
. Highest support from 520 users at 75%.
they know improvements will be
. Lowest support from I-90 users at 53%.
made to 1-90.
52 ) Tolling Implementation Committee 117
Written Comments
In addition to the surveys, more than 8,000 written comments were received, including
more than 1,000 comments from a Sierra Club postcard campaign and more than 3,300
signatures from "No Toll on I-90" petitions.
Comments from the "No Toll on I-90" petitions opposed a toll on I-90, advocated toll
exemptions for residents and workers coming to and from Mercer Island, and opposed
using funds from 1-90 to support 520.
The Sierra Club effort supported variable tolling as a way to reduce traffic congestion,
reduce climate change, and fund transportation choices.
In addition to comments from these organized sources, the most common themes in
general public comments were:
• Generally supports tolling
Comments were in favor of the idea of tolling to fund
the 520 bridge and improve the flow of traffic.
"I strongly support tolls being added to 520 between Seattle
and Bellevue. 1 think this is a responsible solution to pay for the
roadway by those who use it. "
• Generally opposes tolling
Some comments said tolling is a "tax" and others saw
it as a "double tax." Many said other funding should
be used, and some said tolling was not affordable,
either for themselves or for other drivers.
"No tolls, of any hind, not on any state highway... No tolls in
Washington State!"
• Decision -making process
Many respondents were interested in or concerned
about how tolling decisions are being made.
"Mahe a decision and move forward."
• Concerns about the tax burden on
residents
The majority of these respondents said that taxes
in this region are already high, and felt that tolling
would add to this burden.
"I don't think a toll should be required considering the amount
of gas tax we are already paying that supports roads."
Opposes tolling both bridges
Some opposed a toll on 1-90 as a way to fund
improvements to a different corridor, while others
said it was important to have a non -tolled alternative
route across Lake Washin,,;ton, and still others felt it
would hurt Mercer Island residents.
"People that use 520 should be responsible for paying for the
new bridge. "
"Mercer Island residents don't h ve a choice about rerouting
and avoiding tolls, we live here and use the bridge for basic
services."
• Supports increased transit service
Comments often said that increased transit service
would be a necessary complement to tolling on 520.
"I strongly support increased transit and bicycle facilities across
the 520 bridge. "
• Supports tolling both bridges
Comments suggested that both the 520 and 1-90
bridges be tolled, and many said tolling should begin
on the two bridges at the same time and in 2010.
Some were concerned about diversion effects or lower
revenues if only the 520 bridge is tolled.
"We all paid for the I-90 bridge to be rebuilt, we all should pay
for the 520 to be expanded. I an, for both bridges to be tolled."
Complete comment summaries and full text of all comments are available in Appendix 1.
18 1 520 Tolling Implementation Committee
evaluating and
comparing toll scenarios
The Legislature directed the Committee to study three basic scenarios:
• Toll 520 when the new bridge opens
• Toll the existing 520 bridge
• Toll both the 520 and 1-90 bridges and fund improvements on both
Committee staff developed scenarios intended to demonstrate the
effects of tolling 520 or tolling both 520 and 1-90. For the summer 2008
outreach effort, four scenarios were developed and presented to the
public. Based on outreach and public input, the Committee selected six
additional scenarios for the fall 2008 outreach effort. Detailed results of
each of these scenarios are included in Appendix C.
520 Tolling Implementation Committee 1 19
The basic scenarios were expanded to ten by the
Committee to provide the public with examples of tolling
effects. Analysis of the tenth scenario (HOT lanes on
1-90) was completed after the other scenarios. A more
detailed traffic model was used —one that addresses lane
configuration, on and off ramps, and other bridge design
elements. The model also allowed toll prices in the HOT
lane to change with traffic conditions, rather than by time
of day.
The Committee used a three -step approach to evaluating
toll scenarios. These steps were:
• Travel Demand Modeling —Forecasts the number
of vehicles and people, the routes they take and the
modes (single occupant, carpool, transit) they use.
• Revenue Analysis —Projects gross revenue, deductions
for toll collection and maintenance, and net revenue
available for bridge funding.
Financial Capacity Analysis —Assesses how much
project funding can be supported by tolls, including
bonds and pay-as-you-go construction spending.
Financial capacity is the bottom line for how much
funding is needed and available to pay for the bridge
through tolls.
520-Only Toll Scenarios
1. Toll 520 in 2016, when project is complete —This is
the traditional approach to tolling, one that was used
on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. However, unlike the
Tacoma Narrows Bridge, variable tolling was used in
this scenario.
2. Toll 520 in 2010, when construction begins —By
tolling sooner rather than later, lower overall toll
rates can yield the same level of funding with less
borrowing. Traffic on the bridge will also flow better
when variable tolls are in place.
5. Toll 520 at a flat rate in 2016—This approach is the
most similar to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. A flat rate
toll that does not change by time of day would begin
when the new bridge opens in 2016.
6. Toll 520 in 2010 at a rate that attempts to maximize
funding by tolling only 520—This approach was
intended to find a toll rate at which the funding
gap for the project could be closed by tolling only
520. The toll rates studied are the highest of the ten
scenarios.
20 1 520 Tolling Implementation Committee
Toll 520 in 2010; increase rate in 2016—Some have
suggested that while tolling early makes sense from a
financial perspective (enabling a significant reduction
in financing costs), the corridor will still be under
construction during these early years and drivers
will not have the full benefit of the six -lane facility.
Others have suggested that a lower toll initially would
provide an opportunity to test congestion benefits
associated with tolling and enable a tolling rate to be
established later when the corridor is complete. This
may provide a balance between improving corridor
performance, raising revenue for the project and
managing diversion impacts.
Two -Bridge (520 and 1-90) Scenarios
3. Toll both bridges (520 and I-90) in 2016—Tolls I-90
and 520 bridges in 2016, when the 520 bridge opens.
4. Toll 520 bridge in 2010 and I-90 in 2016—Tolls 520
in 2010 when construction begins on the bridge, but
tolls on 1-90 would not begin until 2016 when the
new capacity is in place on 520.
8. Toll 520 at a higher rate than I-90 in 2016—At the
public meetings, residents in the 1-90 corridor were
concerned that the bulk of the tolling revenue from
the two bridges would go toward improvements on
520. Also, it was noted that when both bridges are
tolled equally, more traffic is attracted to the 520
corridor. Having a higher toll on 520 than on I-90
could balance, from a traffic management standpoint,
the use of both bridges. This scenario would have
drivers on 520, where the bulk of the improvements
are planned, paying more toward the cost of replacing
the bridge.
9. Toll both bridges in 2010—This scenario provided
the Committee with information about traffic effects
and the amount of early funding raised from lower
toll rates.
10. Full bridge toll on 520; HOT lanes on I-90—In this
scenario, 520 would be tolled starting in 2010. To
provide a congestion relief benefit to those using
I-90, a HOT (high -occupancy toll) lane system could
be implemented on I-90. Chis scenario continues to
provide a free travel alternative in the I-90 corridor
and meets the intent of the multi -jurisdiction
Memorandum of Agreement regarding the corridor.
The Memorandum of Agr..'ement is available in
Appendix I
variablesis
.:' in tol
scenarios
Toll scenarios differed in their use of key variables that might or might not be part of a
final tolling plan for 520 and/or I-90. Some important variables include:
• Toll collection locations (single -point or segment) —A tolling location could be at
a single point, such as the eastern end of the 520 bridge. There could also be several
tolling locations, so that drivers would pay a partial toll for using just a portion of the
520 corridor, such as for trips between 1-5 and the Montlake interchange in Seattle.
Some toll scenarios were modeled with single -point tolls and some with segment tells.
Single -point toll on both
existing and new 520
bridges
• Beginning in 2010 for Scenarios 2, 4,
6, 7, 9
• Beginning or continuing in 2016 for
Scenarios 5, 7, 8, 9
Segment tolls on new 520
bridge
• Beginning in 2016 for Scenarios 1, 2,
3, 4, 6
Segment tolls on 1-90
• Beginning in 2016 for Scenarios 3, 4
Single -point toll on 1.90
• Beginning in 2010 for Scenario 9
• Beginning in 2016 for Scenario 8
Figure 6. Options for toll collection locations.
Lake Wash, 91On0 Lake N
Montlake 2
LEGEND i i
— Full Will, crossing the bridge from any entri pent i
Seattle loin: enthe e@ from 15 a I-40.5 � Bellevue
but not crossing the bridge
SrtraMer loin: enA. e:itng between
g4MAve� 1O9E
4so west poM ' eke >u srnrghn
ErrKra atMereeltlrta N
sly ry
49Q seat po6N
ae>i�rklark �Ti'L�
O LEGEND
Full tod: crossing between 1.5 and "M
-- segment toll: crossing between 1-5 and west point Mercer
or crossing between "M and east point Island
--- mid
i ike xasN gl•;n
seattle'Single-point
sey Toll
t" "w' w•
.•ee
® LEGEND ••*+ase•ae•e••se•x
-- Full top passing top point from either directwn Mercer
,.. No top Island
52) Tolling Implementation Committee 121
• Toll exemptions —For the purposes of the scenario analysis, some scenarios assumed
all vehicles would pay the toll. Others assumed that only transit vehicles would
be exempt and still others exempted carpools with three or more people from toll
payment. By looking at a variety of exemption types, the Committee could assess the
revenue implications of exemptions.
• Variable tolls or flat tolls —All but two of the scenarios assume variable tolls, set by
time of day, that are higher in the peak travel periods and lower at all other times.
Variable toll rates would not change automatically according to traffic conditions.
One scenario examined a flat rate toll that stays the same twenty-four hours a day,
and another (the HOT lane scenario) examined a toll on 1-90 that increases or
decreases according to actual traffic conditions.
• Toll rate ranges —For the purposes of this analysis, the Committee presented tolls in
the following time frames:
Morning Commute $2.15 - $4.25
(5 am - 9 am)
Mid -day $1.05 - $2.75
(9 am - 3 pm)
Afternoon Commute $2.80 - $5.35
(3 pm - 7 pm)
Evening $1.00 - $2.55
(7 pm - 10 pm)
Overnight* $0.00 - $0.95
(10pm-yam)
Weekend : $0.80 - $1.60
*Tolls would be in effect 24 hours a day after bridge completion in 2016.
Toll rates for 520-only scenarios are shown in Figure 8 on the opposite page. Toll rates
for two -bridge (520 and I-90) toll scenarios are in Figure 9 on page 24. For the purposes
of the analysis and report, all toll rates are reported in 2007 dollars. The tolls are then
assumed to increase yearly at the assumed rate of inflation of 2.5 percent. The 2010
scenarios do not include an overnight toll.
The average toll paid under each of the ten scenarios is for a one-way trip. The average
round trip toll would be double that amount. This rate is useful for comparison purposes
among the scenarios. The actual rates paid would depend on the time of day that a
person made the trip across the bridge.
For the purpose of this analysis, trucks are broken into three categories, including light,
medium and heavy. Light trucks pay the same toll as a passenger vehicle while medium
trucks pay twice that rate and heavy trucks pay three times the passenger rate.
For Scenario 10, the HOT lanes on 1-90 were priced between 10 cents and 70 cents per
mile, depending on the time of day and the direction of travel. These rates for the IIOT
lanes were then combined with Scenario 6 (Toll 520 in 2010 at a rate that attempts to
maximize funding by tolling only 520).
22 1 520 Tolling Implementation Committee
Figure 7.
Chart shows the range of one-way
toll rates that were assumed across
nine of the ten scenarios (I-90
HOT lanes since they would
be dynamically priced, are not
included). Actual toll rates would
vary within these time periods.
Figure 8. 520-only toll scenario rates, one-way,
expressed in 2007 dollars.
Chart shows minimum toll, maximum toll and average
toll paid in each 520-only toll scenario.
Scenario 1
Toll 520 in 2016
Scenario 2
Toll 520 in 2010
Scenario 5
Flat rate toll on
520 (2016)
Scenario 6
Maximum
funding by
tolling only 520
Scenario 7
Toll 520 in 2010;
increase rate in
2016
Bridge
Funding
$1 $2 $3 $4 $5 Generated
$0.75 $3.80 $835
million
$1.00'' $2.95 $853
million
$0.75 2016 Average = $1.64 $2.95
-_ ... ... _ 1 .. I ._ __ __ __
$522
million
................. _..__.._.........._.$3
_ ._ ._.............__...__._............L................. _..............._ ........... .
$1.50 .80
$1.52
$0.95 2016 Average = $2.92 $5.35 billion
__ ........_ .... .
$1.50 $3.25
$1.189
$0.75 2016 Average _ $2.28 $3.80 billion
52 ) Tolling Implementation Committee 1 23
Figure 9. Two -bridge (520 and 1-90) toll scenario rates, one-way,
expressed in 2007 dollars.
Chart shows minimum toll, maximum toll and average toll paid in each
two -bridge toll scenario.
$1 $2
Scenario 3
Toll both
bridges in 2016
Scenario 4
Toll 520 in 2010
and 1.90 in 2016
Scenario 8
Toll 520 at a higher
rate than 1-90 in 2016
(520)
(/-90)
Scenario 9
Toll both bridges in
2010
Scenario 10
Toll 520 in 2010 and
use HOT lanes on
1-90 in 2016
(520)
(I-90)
Weekends
For all scenarios
$0.75
$3 $4
Bridge
Funding
$5 Generate)
$3.25 $2.229 billion
$3.25
$2.457 billion
$3.25
$4.20
$2.17 billion
$0.75 $2.80
$1.00 $2.95
—;;;;
$2.4 billion
$0.75 2016 Average = $1.64 $2.95
_i _ i_ __ _I ... .... _............... _
$0.95'
i
$0.80
$1.50
$3.80
2016 Average = $2.92 $5.35
I I
y.
,t ons $1.774 billion
24 1 520 Tolling Implementation Committee
The Legislature's
Funding Target
Section 3 of ESHB 3096,
calls for "recognition
of revenue sources that
include... one billion five
hundred million dollars to
two billion dollars in toll
revenue... "
This funding target was
based on the project
budget as it stood in
April 2008. The pie chart
in Figure 10 shows the
funding sources identified
by the Legislature.
Cash Flow
Required
The funding target
established by the
Legislature did not account
for the fact that some of
the funds allocated to
the project would not be
available until after project
completion. This will
require bonds to be issued
in anticipation of that
future revenue and will
raise the project finance
costs. Figure 11 shows the
cash flow needs for the
project against the current
identified state and federal
funding sources, as of
April 2008,
Figure 10. Anticipated fundingsources
identified by Legislature in ESHB 3096
Federal Bridge Funds
$114 M
State Gas Tax
Other Program $1,072 M
Federal Funds (Risk Pool)
Project estimate as of April 2008 was $3.7 billion — $3.9 billion
(Low end of range reflects $180 million in sales tax deferral)
Tolling
(between $1.5 and
$2.0 billion)
Figure 11. Project cash flow needs
and identied fundingsources
700 SR 520 — Identified Non Toll Funding Sources vs. Capital Expenditures
600
500
400
8
0 300
200
100
— Future Federal Funding
—Nickel, TPA & Other State Funding
--�• Spring2008 Project Expenditure Plan (After
Sales Tax Deferral)
Prior 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Fiscal Year
52) Tolling Implementation Committee 1 25
Financial Capacity Results
Figure 12 below illustrates how scenarios relate to the 2008 Legislative funding target.
$3,000 M
$2,500 M
$2,000 M
$1,500 M
$1,000 M
$500 M
in M
$2 457 $2,428
$2 229 $2 170
$1.5 - $2 Billion 2008 Legislative Funding Target
$1,520
$1,774
$1,189
$835 $853
522
CO
0
q
4O
a4No
��.o
a��o
-419
SGGC
SG��
SG��
SG��
SGG�
SGe�
SGe�
SG�C
GeiC�
5
Figure 12.
Financial capacity of ten toll scenarios.
Given the cost of the project, the cash flow needs for construction as of April 2008, and
the timing and availability of funds, more than $2.0 billion from tolls would be needed
to fully fund the project if no additional revenue sources are found. It should be noted,
however, that the final project budget and the exact cash flow needs have yet to be
determined.
For these estimates, interest rates were assumed to be 6.0 percent for current interest
bonds and 6.5 percent for capital appreciation bonds to reflect changing market
conditions. Peak years for cash flow will be 2014 through 2016, and for purposes of the
Committee's work, the project cost was assumed to be $3.7 to $3.9 billion. Detailed
information about the finance assumptions is included in Appendix C.
26 1 520 Tolling Implementation Committee
�. reasonableness"
b:of the toll
Flat Rate Toll vs. Variable Toll
Results from the analysis suggest that the bridge performs better with variable tolls than
with flat rate tolls and that variable tolls provide greater financial capacity. A flat rate toll
is relatively low during rush hour compared to a variable toll, encouraging more people
to use the bridge at peak times, and limiting speeds. During the mid -day or at night when
there is little or no congestion on other facilities, such as I-90, more people will divert to
those routes to avoid paying the flat rate toll, which is higher than the variable toll would
be at the same time of day.
Average Toll Paid
The average toll paid is also useful for a comparison of toll rates against other facilities.
Figure 13 shows the tolls charged on a number of other tolled facilities across the nation.
In our region, the best example is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge that opened in July 2007.
The current toll on the Tacoma Narrows is $4.00 if using a toll booth and $2.75 with
a Good to Go! transponder. That toll is only collected in one direction. The graphic also
compares toll rates to bus fares and ferry fares.
Figure 13.
Toll rate and transit fares shown are one-way.
Bus tares across 520 bridge
Seattle -Bellevue, WA
Fare: $ 2.25 King County Metro
Monthly Fasa: $ 881.00
Ann
ual Pass: $•pM .00
520 Tolling Implementation Committee 127
how bridge tolling affects
diversion
Diversion can be defined in four ways: take another route,
shift to transit, change destination or travel at a different
time of day. Diversion rates are sensitive to several factors.
The major factor is toll rate, followed by availability of
alternate routes. If no good alternate route is available,
many people will continue to take trips on the corridor
rather than divert. This seems to have been the case
with the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, where the traffic levels
have been higher than projected. If there is a nearby
alternate route (for example I-90), diversion may be more
significant.
The situation changes if two bridges are tolled. Bridge
users would face the choice of diverting to the north or
south ends of Lake Washington should they want a
non -tolled route. Traffic levels, and thus diversion rates,
may change as a result of economic conditions. Mitigation
measures for toll -related diversion are discussed on page
36 and in Appendix G.
Diversion to Specific Routes
In all scenarios, most traffic will stay on 520. Those who
change routes can choose between 522, I-90 or I-405.
In general, analysis found that most people continue to
use the tolled bridge, either by paying the toll, carpooling,
taking transit or changing the time of their trip. Some
people do change their route, but the overall effect of
those route changes tends to be distributed across the
transportation system.
The diversion data in Appendix C are presented for 520-
only and two -bridge scenarios and for 2010 and 2016.
Data is also broken down by peak and off-peak periods
and for vehicle volumes and person trips. This data is
generated by the regional travel demand model.
For the 520-only scenarios:
• Transit ridership increases 15 to 30 percent, provided
service is in place in 2010. This represents about three
percent of all 520 users.
• Peak period traffic on 520 decreases, because some
people choose other routes. The higher the toll rate,
the higher the diversion rate.
• Peak period traffic on I-90 increases less than
5 percent, except in the highest toll 520-only scenario
where it increases 8 percent.
• Peak period traffic on 522. (at 61st Avenue in Kenmore)
increases by no more than 5 percent.
• Peak period traffic on I-405 (at 167 in Renton)
increases by no more than 3 percent.
• Between 3 and 11 percent choose to travel at a
different time of day in 2')10.
For the two -bridge (520 and I-90) scenarios:
• There is a decrease in volumes on both 520 and
I-90 as some people choose other routes, modes, or
destinations.
• Peak period traffic on 522 (at 61st Avenue in Kenmore)
increases by no more than 5 percent.
• Peak period diversion to 1-405 (at 167 in Renton) is
greater in two -bridge scenarios, with volume increases
reaching 8 percent.
Figure 14. Diversion from 520.
The pie chart below illustrates diversion findings from
one scenario and is not meant to represent all findings. h
is from Scenario 6 and shows the travel decisions people
make during peak periods in 2010. Text in the left-hand
column describes general changes in vehicle traffic.
Shift to HOV - 1% Shift to Transit - 3%
Change time - 6% Shift to 1-90 - 6%
s` Shift to SR 522 - 1%
Shi'
c
to 405 - 2%
-Change
destination - S%
28 1 520 Tolling Implementation Committee
Diversion effects on arterials
Local roadways leading to tolled bridges have less traffic when tolls are in place, while
access routes leading to alternate routes would see an increase in volumes. The regional
travel demand model does a good job of showing how regional traffic is projected to
shift routes or modes when tolls are placed on one of these major routes. Data has beer:
generated for major roadways; however, additional traffic modeling is needed to see
specific arterial effects. (See 520 Tolling Screenline and Location Traffic Estimates in
Appendix B.)
Diversion in 520-only vs. two -bridge scenarios
When only 520 is tolled, the greatest route diversion effects are seen on I-90. When both
bridges are tolled more traffic moves to the north and south ends of Lake Washington.
I-405 south of I-90 is affected more than 522, because much of the diversion to 522
comes from tolling 520. I-405 only becomes a viable option for many people if
I-90 is tolled.
One of the key evaluation criteria is how tolls affect bridge performance and traffic flow.
Tolls should provide improved speeds.
Impacts on Bridge Speeds
When tolls are in place traffic volumes go down and speeds improve. * On 520, speeds
increase as much as 40 percent (under the highest toll rate scenario). Speeds increase on
average from 10 to 30 miles per hour in the corridor between I-5 and I-405. When both
520 and I-90 are tolled, speeds improve on both bridges in peak and off-peak times.
Figure 15. Impact of tolling options on bridge speeds.*
10
—0
Variable
Above: S20 bridge speed ranges,
comparing no toll, flat toll and
variable tolls in peak times in 2010.
Right: Examples of speed changes
during peak and off-peak times on
the S20 bridge in 2010 without
tolls compared to with tolls.
*Based upon the regional travel
demand model.
30 410
�'�i 0 50�S
—0 60-
2010 Peak
without tolls
20 4030 N-�
10
—0 60—
2010 Off -Peak
without tolls
P,\
30
20 40
0 50 �-;
60 —
2010 Peak
with tolls
\�� 30
� 20 40 1�►
0 50 . t
C el"N 0 ::
60—
2010 Off -Peak
with tolls
52 0 Tolling Implementation Committee 129
Incentives for transit and carpooling provide an alternative
to paying the toll. The 2006 Commute Trip Reduction
(CTR) Efficiency Act focused on urban growth areas and
congested corridors. There are more than 570 employers
participating in CTR program, with more than 337,000
employees.
The program focuses on the Seattle and Bellevue central
business districts, as well as the Overlake and Totem Lake
areas, making the CTR program central to reducing traffic
congestion on 520 and other area highways. The CTR
Board estimates that CTR programs save an average of five
minutes for a typical commuter from Seattle to Bellevue.
The Urban Partnership Agreement also includes
transportation demand management, including shifting
trips to transit or carpool travel. Currently, King County
Metro and Sound Transit buses carry more than 15,000
riders each day on 520, and the Urban Partnership
Agreement would fund purchase of 45 new buses carrying
5,000 additional riders each day. Funding to operate the
buses has not been identified.
Almost all major employers in King County use CTR
programs, and their programs include:
• University of Washington U PASS
• FlexPass and PugetPass
• Vanpool and Carpool Subsidies
• Emergency Ride Home
• Parking Management
• R-TRIP In Redmond
Transit Need and Availability
Transit ridership is expected to grow 30 percent or more
on 520 if the Urban Partnership Agreement service is
added. In addition, the recently approved Sound Transit
2 includes 100,000 systemwide hours of additional bus
service that could improve transit in this corridor. Bus
rapid transit could also be used on 520 in the future to
meet transit demand.
30 1 520 Tolling Implementation Committee
Figure 16.
Urban Partnership Agreement service levels and costs.
Metro
Sound Transit
Buses ($41 million)
30
15
Annual Service Hours
28,000
10,000
Annual Operating Cost
$3,500,000
$1,250,000
(Purchase of buses included in Urban Partnership Agreement; service
costs unfunded. Source: Sound Transit and King County Metro. )
Telecommuting
One of the key components of the Urban Partnership
Agreement is promoting telecommuting and flextime as
options for some employees. By encouraging employees
to work from home at least part-time and/or adjusting
their work schedules to take advantage of lower toll rates,
businesses will contribute to the goal of decreasing traffic
in this busy corridor.
Providing Choices
WSDOT plans major outreach efforts to occur in the
months leading up to the start of tolling across Lake
Washington. All publications and presentations related to
tolling will include information on the choices available
to drivers, including transit, carpooling, telecommuting,
and flextime. A small change in the number of drivers
who choose an alternative to driving alone will have a
significant effect on traffic flow. By offering a range of
choices, drivers can determine what changes work for
them.
Public Comment on Transit
When asked what they would do if a toll were charged on
520, nine percent of participants in the statistically -valid
phone survey said they would take transit. Of web survey
respondents, 17 percent said they would take transit if
a toll were charged. This compares with 76 percent of
phone survey respondents and 78 percent of web survey
respondents saying it is important to have transit available
as an alternative to paying tolls.
In the written comments received in fall 2008, 13 percent
of respondents expressed support for increased transit
service. In the written comments received in summer
2008, 21 percent of respondents expressed support
for increased transit servi,.:e in these corridors. These
respondents often said that increased transit service would
be a necessary complement to tolling on 520. Others
expressed general suppon for transit service, including
both bus and rail service on 520, I-90, and throughout the
region.
Most comments that referenced transit mentioned
alternatives to paying a toll. Transit improvements were
often mentioned as way to reduce effects on lower -income
travelers. Some respondents advocated using toll revenue
to fund transit improvements, while others were opposed
to funding transit with toll revenue. Use of toll revenue for
transit service is a legislative policy decision.
52.0 Tolling Implementation Committee 131
. !. . ;• .r •4 . _
AL
lower -income bridge users
Committee Outreach Activities
As part of its outreach, the Committee publicized its open
houses and website information in minority newspapers,
social service newsletters, transit, and at community
events. It coordinated with the 520 program on surveys
and focus groups, and met with social service agencies to
better understand how tolling may affect lower -income
commuters.
Current services that meet the needs of lower -income
customers:
• Customers can establish Good To Go! accounts with
cash. There is no need for a credit or debit card.
• Lower -income users can establish and replenish a
Good To Go! account using their EBT (Quest) card
issued by DSHS.
• Full -service Good To Go! customer service centers are
available for cash customers.
• Mobile Good To Go! center is available to set up at
events, businesses, and high -traffic areas.
Findings and Input
• A higher proportion of lower -income families' budgets
will go toward tolls.
• Putting $30 in a pre -paid Good to Go! account may be
difficult for lower -income families. They may not have
credit or debit cards to automatically replenish online
accounts.
• Most trips across the bridge are for people accessing
social services, work or medical appointments.
• Buses don't always work for those with children in day
care who must be dropped off before continuing on
to work.
Additional options to consider:
• Implement more bus service in the corridor to better
meet demand. Forty-five new buses are planned for
the corridor under the Urban Partnership Agreement,
but funding to operate the buses has not yet been
identified.
• Investigate partnering with retail outlets to make
purchase and replenishment of cash and Good to Go!
accounts more widely accessible.
• Translate tolling materials into several languages.
32 1 520 Tolling Implementation Committee
• Educate service providers who can explain the system
to those who do not read.
• Explore a transportation allowance for those who use
the bridge that will provide additional toll allowances
on EBT cards, consistent with existing eligibility
requirements.
• Analyze the relationship between toll rates and
transit fares.
Puget Sound Data
• In the 2005 census, 10 percent of King County
households were below the national poverty line of
$19,971 for a family of four.
• The median household income in King County was
$58,351.
• Transit serves many lower -income residents. According
to a 2006 King County Metro Rider / Non -Rider
Survey, 25 percent of the riders who participated in
the survey had household incomes below $35,000,
compared to only 12 percent of non -riders.
National Research
National research on the effects of tolls on lower -income
populations is limited, with most studies focused on HOT
(high -occupancy toll) lanes. Definitions of lower -income
vary across studies, making clear conclusions difficult. In
general, national research indicates:
• The cost of purchasing a transponder and the possible
need for a credit card to set up an electronic account
can limit accessibility for lower -income people.
• Lower -income drivers are more likely to pay for a toll
if it results in time savings or reliability.
• Lower -income populations are more likely to use
transit and more likely to carpool.
A recent UCLA study
suggested that a toll
would adversely affect
lower -income users of a
highway but would be
more equitable than a sales
tax that affected all lower -
income people regardless
of whether or not
they drive.
si
,ipportunities topartner
businesses
The Committee did not find business interest in providing direct funding
assistance for the 520 project. Opportunities do exist to partner with
businesses and educate their employees about tolling through the various
Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) programs.
Specifically, the Puget Sound Regional Council is working to create CTR
zones in employment centers. The current program targets employers with
over 100 employees in one location who commute during peak times.
Changing the focus to employment centers will expand CTR services and
funding to smaller businesses.
Businesses will play a primary role in future outreach activities focused
on educating drivers about electronic tolling and how the Good To Go!
system will work in the 520 corridor. Marketing activities will include
presentations to employees, e-newsletters, breakroom posters, news
articles, employee and client handouts, and on -site Good To Go! account
sign-ups. The business community has responded positively to this role
on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project and is expected to be an important
partner in sharing information and encouraging employees to participate
in the electronic tolling program. In return, businesses recognize the
benefits of improved traffic conditions, potential added transit service,
and variable toll rates for their employees and clients.
52) Tolling Implementation Committee 1 33
Toll Collection Technology
When the Tacoma Narrows Bridge opened in 2007,
Washington State launched an electronic tolling system
called Good to Go!. More than 70 percent of traffic using
the new bridge travels non-stop at highway speeds without
stopping at toll booths. During peak times, the number is
85 percent. Solo drivers on 167 in Southeast King County
can now use this same electronic tolling system to pay for
a quicker trip on the IfOT lanes.
The 520 corridor will use 100 percent electronic tolling
- no toll booths at all. This means all traffic on 520 can
cross without stopping to pay.
Simulation of toll collection on existing 520 east high-rise
With Good to Go! electronic tolls are collected with a
transponder, about the size of a credit card. Drivers affix
the transponder on the inside of their cars' windshields.
When driving on a tolled facility, an overhead antenna
links the transponder to account information, and
deducts the correct toll from a prepaid account. Automatic
replenishment allows drivers to easily manage accounts by
authorizing payments from a credit card or bank account.
To use this no toll booth
technology, regular users
should have pre -paid
transponder accounts.
However, some people
will not have transponders
or may be visiting from
34 1 520 Tolling Implementation Committee
out of town. Their vehicles will have their license plate
photographed and can prepa✓ (online or by phone) or
be invoiced for the toll, which will include an additional
administrative fee for processing. Transponder technology
and license -plate recognizing cameras are used today
as part of the Good to Go! program on the new Tacoma
Narrows Bridge and at tolling facilities around the world.
All electronic tolling for 520 is important for a number of
reasons:
• High Volume: The currerit daily crossings on 520 are
approximately 115,000 vehicles per day and 150,000
on I-90. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge averages about
40,000 toll transactions per day.
• Traffic Flow: If vehicles on 520 are required to stop
and pay tolls, the resulting congestion would negate
the benefit of improving the facility.
• Variable Tolling: Electronic toll technology supports
the use of variable tolling, which provides lower toll
rates during non -peak hours and helps keep traffic
moving.
Advances in Tolling Technology
As technology continues to develop, additional
technologies will become available and could make toll
collection easier and more cost efficient. Technologies that
may be available for toll collection in the future include:
• Transponders that include a button or switch
indicating if the vehicle is currently a high -occupancy
vehicle (HOV).
• Global positioning system (GPS)-based tolling
technology.
• Stored -value card for transit, ferries and tolled
facilities.
• Rental car companies outiitting rental cars with
transponders or using lief nse plate images to pay tolls
for their rental fleets.
Active traffic management is the use of high-tech traffic Smarter Roadways Tomorrow
tools to make roadways safer and less congested. These Building upon the successes already seen, new techniques
tools provide more accurate real-time information about are available and can be used in the Puget Sound region,
what is on the road ahead and help improve traffic flow. including:
If given approval to implement tolling on 520, WSDOT
will expand current use of these technologies and focus on
low-cost projects that have high benefits for drivers.
Today's Tools and Technologies
Include:
• Real-time information for drivers, such as electronic
driver information signs, traffic cameras, traffic
centers and online traffic maps. The Puget Sound
region already has more than 475 traffic cameras, 169
electronic driver information signs, and seven traffic
management hubs.
• Ramp meters, or stop -and -go traffic signals, that
automatically space vehicles entering the flow of
traffic on the highway. Today, 135 ramp meters help
keep traffic moving on some of Washington's busiest
routes.
• Incident response teams that clear roads and help
drivers. WSDOT used more than 55 trucks and
responded to more than 52,000 incidents in 2007.
• Using HOV lanes more efficiently, with projects
including a four-year high -occupancy toll (HOT) lane
pilot project on 167 between Auburn and Renton that
converted a HOV lane to a HOT lane.
• Installing overhead signs, which convey variable speed
limits; lane closures and warning signs, to alert drivers
to slow down or change lanes because of collisions
and backups.
• Where possible, building additional emergency pull
off areas for vehicle breakdowns or collisions.
Future variable speed limit and
driver information signs will
improve traffic flow and safety on
northbound I-S between Boeing
Access Road and 1-90. Similar
signs will also be used in the
S20 corridor.
520 Tolling Implementation Committee 135
lmz
diversion
for related J
The Committee was tasked by the Legislature with • 522, Bellevue/Points communities arterials, I-90,
evaluating potential tolling diversion from 520 to other I-405 South, Seattle/University of Washington,
roadways and recommending mitigation to address
diversion. All the tolling scenarios had similar effects on Committee mitigation recommendations related to tolling
traffic diversion, although specific amounts and locations include:
varied based on toll rates and facilities tolled. a System -wide instrumentation and traffic monitoring
What Happens on Local Roads?
Generally, in the 520-only toll scenarios, traffic drops on
direct access routes to 520 (such as Montlake Boulevard
and Lake Washington Boulevard) and increases somewhat
on direct access routes to I-90 (such as Rainier Avenue
and Bellevue Way). In two -bridge scenarios, traffic on all
direct access routes drops somewhat. Local access routes to
522 have increases in traffic in all toll scenarios. Complete
diversion data can be found in Appendix C.
A Proposed Two -Part Approach to
Mitigation
The Committee is recommending an approach that
attempts to keep traffic on the tolled 520, and takes
actions to mitigate the effects of diversion off of 520
Additional detail on this approach is in Appendix G.
Part 1: Approaches to keep traffic on the tolled 520
• Use variable tolls to improve performance during peak
periods and encourage traffic to stay on the bridge in
the off-peak when tolls are lower.
• In addition to meeting debt requirements, manage toll
levels to keep traffic on the bridge; higher tolls will
divert more traffic off 520.
• Segment tolls are opposed by jurisdictions throughout
the region. Segment tolls may cause traffic to divert to
local arterials to avoid a toll; however, segment tolls
also lower traffic on bridge approaches and improve
traffic flow.
• Identify funding to operate Urban Partnership
Agreement transit service, and continue working with
employers to reduce solo commutes in these corridors.
• Replace the 520 bridge. An expanded bridge will
improve traffic flow and bring traffic that currently
diverts because of congestion back to the 520 corridor.
Part 2: Mitigation recommendations
Based on discussions with jurisdictions, the Committee
identified five areas of concern related to traffic diversion:
- Additional coverage would be needed on 522.
- Local access roads mx; need to be added such as
Ballinger Way, NE 145th Street, and Juanita Drive.
522 mitigation
- Traffic reporting with electronic driver information
signs at decision points on I-5, 1-405, and along
522.
- Traffic signal reliability and coordination.
• A toll mitigation account to respond to traffic
diversion effects would be set up to fund the noted
mitigation strategies and to find other mitigation
as necessary. A joint state, local process would be
developed to decide which projects should be
implemented to mitigate the actual effects of diverted
traffic once tolling begins. Funds from the account
would be focused on the six -year period following
tolling authorization.
• Advanced traffic management technology on 520,
I-90, 1-405 and I-5.
• A coordinated transit implementation plan developed
by WSDOT, King County and Sound Transit.
• Transit service expansion via the urban Partnership
Agreement in the 520 corridor and possible other
improvements to transit service in response to
anticipated or actual traffc diversion.
• Transit -related improvements such as new or
expanded park -and -rides should be added, including
in the 1-90 corridor, if it i!. tolled.
• In a two -bridge scenario, expansion work on I-405
and I-405 alternate route,,should proceed as quickly
as possible.
• Local jurisdictions support new transit service in the
corridor. The Urban Partnership Agreement would
fund the purchase of 45 rr ew buses, but operational
funds are needed.
• Funding to operate transi needs to be identified and
secured. Using toll revent.es to pay for that service is a
policy decision to be made by the Legislature.
36 1 520 Tolling Implementation Committee
f..
Volume 1:
A: Legislation - ESHB 3096
B: Outreach Events and Materials
C: Travel Demand Modeling and Financial Analysis
D: Travel Demand Model Peer Review
E: Active Traffic Management
F: Toll Collection Technology
G: Mitigation Recommendations for Diversion
H: Discussions on I-90
Volume 2:
I: Public Comments
• Letter from jurisdictions
• Summaries of public comment
• All public comments received
jr-
David Hopkins
Director, Government Relations and Communications
Urban Corridors Office
Washington State Department of Transportation
401 Second Ave. South, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
206.464.1194
hopkida@wsdot.wa.gov
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information: Sign language and communications materials in
alternative formats can be arranged given sufficient notice by calling 206.464.7090 or TDD/TTY 206.464.5409.
Title VI: The 520 Tolling Implementation Committee ensures full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 by prohibiting discrimination against any person on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the
provision of benefits and services resulting from its federally assisted programs and activities.
Statement by Mercer Island Mayor Jim Pearman
to the 520 Tolling Implementation Committee
at the Nov. 17, 2008 Open House
The City of Mercer Island appreciates the excellent work the Committee and its staff have done.
It's enormously helpful to forecast the effects of nine different combinations of tolling rates and
locations. Like you, Mercer Island is looking for the best way to fund the replacement of the 520
bridge, while maintaining the smoothest traffic flow to and from Seattle and the Eastside.
We know the Committee has received a great deal of input from citizens, businesses and elected
officials, and quite a lot has come from us on Mercer Island. We've forwarded to you statements
of our interests and a Resolution adopted by the City Council in early October. We understand
you will be including our written input in your final report to the Legislature and the Governor in
January. Some of my fellow Council members will also be speaking this evening on the points
we want the Tolling Committee to consider.
In addition, you may recall that our letter of Sept. 11 requested three analyses that would benefit
from the Traffic Forecasting Model you are using to test your tolling scenarios.
• We're gratified that you created and tested a scenario that assumes tolls only on 520, at
tolling rates that generate enough revenue to fill the funding gap projected by the
Legislature. New Scenario #6 does indeed raise over $1.5 billion with 520 tolls averaging
$2.36 in 2010 and $2.92 in 2016. In this scenario, the impacts on 1-90 are only very slight
during peak hour travel. This is good news.
• We also suggested a scenario that includes tolling on 1-5 and 1-405 not only to generate
revenue for the 520 project, but to address diversion across the 1-90 bridge and around
the lake to the north and south. We understand from your staff that such a scenario
would have been outside the Committee's charter as laid out in House Bill 3096.
• Our third request was for the Committee to test what would happen if travel to and from
Mercer Island is not tolled in each of the scenarios that impose tolls on 1-90. We
requested this analysis because our policy position — stated in our October Resolution —
is that "Tolls must not be imposed on travel to and from Mercer Island on 1-90 ... " We
feel it is our responsibility to know whether that policy position would have an adverse
effect on funding for the 520 bridge project, and whether it would somehow negatively
affect transportation within the corridor.
We understand that the Committee has not been able to include this variable in the scenarios
tested so far. However, the answer is very important to Mercer Island.
I asked our City Manager if our own staff would be able to determine what the results would be —
at least regarding the revenue question — if travel to and from the Island is not tolled in the
scenarios that assume tolls on 1-90.
Although the City of Mercer Island doesn't have access to the PSRC model directly, our staff are
conversant with how it works and have talked with your staff who operate the model. They
estimate that of all the trips across the lake on 1-90, about 20% are trips to or from Mercer Island.
Our staff believe that may be a little high, but because in order to generate a "worst case"
estimate, we used the 20% figure.
When we calculated the amount of the tolls paid by 20% of the trips across 1-90 in scenarios #3,
#4, #8 and #9, and then removed that figure from your revenue projections, in every case the
resulting funding for the 520 bridge project filled or exceeded the funding gap of $1.5 to $2 billion.
Admittedly, without actually using the model we can't be fully confident that our proposal still
generates the needed funds. But every way we tested this, the result was just that — funding for
the 520 bridge replacement comes in at the top of the range of the funding needed or, in one
case, above that range.
We still would encourage the Committee to check our conclusion. We acknowledge it will take
more of your staff time to do that. But we believe knowing the answer with certainty will
strengthen your final report and provide useful information to the Legislature.
I want to leave the Committee with the position we took in our Resolution 1402: Even if 1-90 must
be tolled to reach the funding needed for 520, travel to and from Mercer Island should not and
need not be tolled.
June 20, 2008
Bob Drewel, Chair
520 Tolling Implementation Committee
c/o Puget Sound Regional Council
1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98104-1035
Re: Preliminary Expression of Interests regarding Tolling in the Cross -Lake Washington
Corridor
Dear Chairman Drewel:
As you and I discussed on May 28, 1 want to. provide you with an early view of the Mercer island
City Council's interests In the work you are doing to assess the potential impacts of, and possible
mitigations for, tolling in the Lake Washington corridor. We will closely follow your modeling and
data analysis process, and. look to be continuously involved in your deliberations. Mercer Island's
special place in those discussions is described in the December 1976 Memorandum Agreement
on 1-90, the Amendment that followed in 2004, and the 2006 letter from the Secretary of —
Transportation and Governor Gregoire's Chief of Staff. I'm attaching those documents for your
convenience.
As a first step to educate and inform ourselves, the City Council asked State experts on
transportation to serve on a discussion panel at our Council meeting on May S. That panel
consisted of our two State Representatives Judy Clibbom and Fred Jarrett, former Senator Jim
Horn, former Transportation Commissioner Aubrey Davis, and Transportation Department Deputy
Secretary David Dye. This is the panel I mentioned when you and I met a couple of weeks ago.
In the discussion following, our Council talked about several principles that express Mercer
Island's interests in the tolling question. Below is a preliminary summary of points the City wants
to put forward at this early stage in your process.
We all acknowledge that the regional deliberations that follow must rest on the best data we —
specifically your Committee — can produce.. We readily accept your invitation to comment on
your modeling results when they are available in July, and to propose additional avenues of
research, so Mercer Island's contributions will. be data -based and thoughtful.
As these conversations begin, we submit these preliminary statements of Mercer Island's
interests:
Riahts under the 1-90 Memorandum Agreement:
As a. party to the 1976 Memorandum Agreement for 1-90 and the 2004 Amendment, Mercer
Island asserts its rights to consultation and involvement regarding changes to 1-90 "with the, intent
that concurrence of the parties be a prerequisite to [Highway Commission] action to the greatest
extent possible."
Commitment to -Engage in the Analysis and Decision -Making Process;
Mercer Island understands the importance of financial and. mobility modeling, and, of thorough_ i
consideration of the effects and consequences of tolling, as well as the urgency in mai<ing those.
decisions. The Council commits to engage with the 520 Tolling Implementation Committe.e'si data
gathering and analysis, to thoughtfully contribute to its deliberations, and to express,its own.
interests and positions clearly throughout the process.'
Geographically restricted use of toll revenue: l
'a
If tolls are placed on SR:520 and on 1-90, as a congestion management device or as mitigation
for anticipated traffic diversion from SR 520, the revenues derived from tolling these roadways j
must be retained for transportation construction, maintenance, improvement and mitigation within.
the cross -Lake Washington corridor.
Seauence of corridor modifications:
Consistent with previous agreements, Mercer Island expects to see cross -Lake Washington
corridor changes. follow this sequence:
• Early SR 520 tolling to generate a revenue stream for bridge replacement (with the
smallest possible toll, so as to avoid massive diversion onto 1-90);
Completion of the R-8A configuration on 1-90; ..
• Only after MI mobility is secured consistent with the letter and intent of the 1-90
agreements (see attached documents), the center lanes may be given over to Sound
Transit for light rail operations. (The City understands that the R-8A lanes may ultimately
be tolled as HOT lanes. If that occurs, Mercer Island expects to be consulted and
involved in design and implementation.)
Mitigation for decreased access:
In the event that changes to 1-9.0 crossing Mercer Island result in (or anticipate) diminished.
access to the i-90 HOV lanes, MI must be compensated for such loss with capital and/or service
mitigations as secured in the 1-90 Agreements.
Thank you for your consideration of these interests at this early stage. We look forward to
working closely with you and the other regional players.
Best regards,
Jim Pearman, Mayor
cc: Mercer Island Council Members
Representative Judy Clibbom
Representative Fred Jarrett
PSRC Government Relations Director Rick Olson
City Manager Rich Conrad
Interim. Deputy City Manager Linda Herzog
Attachment: Memorandum Agreement -on 1-90 (dated Dec. 1976)
Amendment to the Memorandum Agreement (dated Aug. 2004)
Letter from Tom Fitzsimmons and Doug MacDonald (dated Dec. 22, 2006)
September 11, 2008
Bob Drewel, Chair
520 Tolling Implementation Committee
c% Puget Sound Regional Council
1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98104-1035
Dear Bob,
The Mercer island City Council has discussed the 520 Tolling Implementation
Committee's findings from analysis of the initial tolling scenarios. We very much
appreciate your public information process, and especially the Open House here on
Mercer Island on August 13. Our citizens have been well informed, and many have
provided us feedback on your early modeling conclusions.
At our City Council meeting Tuesday night the Council adopted a policy pertaining to
roadway tolling in general, and decided to ask the Committee for additional analyses.
Both the policy position and the new data requests are summarized below.
Additionally, Mercer Island is preparing policy statements relating directly to the impact
on Mercer Island citizens, workers and visitors of tolling Interstate 90. Those 1-90-
specific policy positions are being fashioned into a Resolution which will be before the
Council for adoption within the next several weeks. If the additional information we are
requesting here becomes available by the time of that meeting, we will incorporate it into
our continuing policy discussions.
Mercer Island wishes to submit this statement of policy regarding roadway tolling:
The Mercer island City Council supports tolling to fund large transportation capital
projects as long as all tolls collected are identified for the construction, maintenance and
improvement of the facility being tolled.
The Mercer Island City Council also requests that the 520 Tolling Implementation
Committee:
• Prepare full traffic forecast and financial analyses for the following two variations
of all past and future scenarios that include tolling on 1-90:
(a) without tolls being paid for travel to and from Mercer Island, and
(b) such that any tolling on 1-90 would allow toll -free travel to and from .
Mercer Island in at least one direction.
• Create and test a scenario that tolls the 520 bridge along with the 1-405 and 1-5
connections between 520 and 1-90.
• Determine what 520-only toll rates and timing will generate all the funding
needed for the 520 project.
Thank you for incorporating our policy statements into the feedback you will be passing
on to the Legislature. We also appreciate the opportunity to submit the above requests
for additional analysis. It is our intention and our hope that the new information will
support not only our own deliberations about 1-90 operations, but also the region -wide
effort to determine the best way to use tolling to help pay for the 520 project while
maintaining the efficiency of the region's transportation system.
Sincerely,
Jim arman, Mayor
Mercer Island Council Members
Representative Judy Clibborn
Representative Fred Jarrett
PSRC Government Relations Director Rick Olson
City Manager Rich Conrad
Interim Deputy City Manager Linda Herzog
AMENDMENT To The I-90
MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT
AUGUST, 2004
Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority
City of Bellevue
City of Mercer Island
City of Seattle
King County
Washington State Transportation Commission
August 2004
Amendment to 1976 Memorandum Agreement
WHEREAS, the Cities of Seattle, Mercer Island, and Bellevue; King County; by
and through their respective governing bodies and the Washington State Transportation
Commission (hereinafter "the Commission") desire to amend the existing Memorandum
Agreement (the Agreement) signed by all parties in 1976 to reflect current and future
conditions and demands along the Interstate 90 (I-90) corridor between Bellevue and
Seattle crossing Lake Washington via Mercer Island (the "I-90 Corridor"), including
increased travel growth, changes in travel patterns, and a reduction in transit reliability;
and
WHEREAS, there is a desire among the parties and Sound Transit to add Sound
Transit as the Regional Transit Authority with responsibility for High Capacity Transit as
a signatory to this 2004 Amendment, but not to the underlying 1976 Agreement, given its
role in the region generally and the I-90 Corridor specifically, and
WHEREAS, all parties recognize the I-90 facility as a key interstate corridor
connecting the East and West Coasts, Eastern and Western Washington, and recognize its
importance as a critical link between major urban centers in King County, and the only
means of mobility to and from Mercer Island; and
WHEREAS, all parties acknowledge I-90 as a critical transportation link vital to
the economy of the region and the state by providing for the movement of people and
goods within the region; and
WHEREAS, all parties agree that the current configuration and operation of I-90
between Bellevue, Mercer Island, and Seattle does not address today's demands and
expected growth in the region; and a new configuration that helps move more people and
goods is imperative to manage congestion on what is the busiest east -west corridor in the
region; and
WHEREAS, all parties recognize the importance of the environment and thereby
seek to preserve and enhance its quality; and
WHEREAS, all parties agree that the ultimate configuration for I-90 between
Bellevue, Mercer Island, and Seattle should be defined as High Capacity Transit in the
center roadway and HOV lanes in the outer roadways; and further agree that High
Capacity Transit for this purpose is defined as a transit system operating in dedicated
right-of-way such as light rail, monorail, or a substantially equivalent system; and
WHEREAS, all parties agree to work cooperatively to secure funding at local,
regional, state, and federal levels to fully fund both parts of the ultimate configuration of
the "I-90 Corridor" (HOV lanes on the outer roadway and High Capacity Transit in the
center roadway); and
WHEREAS, all parties have studied many alternatives as participants on the
Steering Committee for Sound Transit and the Washington State Department of
Transportation's (WSDOT) I-90 Two -Way Transit and HOV Operations Project
(Project), and all parties agree that building HOV lanes on the outer roadways as
identified as Alternative R-8A as set forth in the April 25, 2003 Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared for the project, is an essential first step toward
achieving the ultimate configuration; and
WHEREAS, all parties acknowledge that the ultimate configuration is consistent
with the region's transportation. action plan, Destination 2030, which focuses on
integrated multi -modal transportation systems; describing facilities that weave parts of
the region together by crossing county or city boundaries or access major regional
activity centers as critical to the region's transportation system; and specifically calls for
safety, maintenance, and capacity investments on I-90 between I-5 and 1405; and high
capacity transit in the "I-90 Corridor" between Seattle and Bellevue; and
WHEREAS, all parties agree that I-90 is an integral piece of the regional bike
network, providing the only bicycle -pedestrian path across Lake Washington; that the
preferred alternative maintains a ten foot bicycle lane as part of providing optimal multi -
modal travel in the I-90 corridor for cyclists and pedestrians; and
WHEREAS, the Cities of Bellevue, Mercer Island, and Seattle; King County;
Sound Transit, and the Washington State Transportation Commission, as participants of
the I-90 Steering Committee, having conducted a thorough evaluation of the performance
and benefits of the alternatives, agree that Alternative R-8A has been shown to improve
regional mobility by providing reliable and safe two-way transit and high occupancy
vehicle operations on I-90 between Bellevue, Mercer Island, and Seattle, and mobility for
Mercer Island, while minimizing impacts to the environment, to other users, and to other
transportation modes; and is an essential first step toward implementing High Capacity
Transit in the I-90 corridor;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the parties to this 2004 Amendment
agree to the following principles regarding future development of the I-90 Corridor
between Seattle and Bellevue:
1. Alternative R-8A with High Capacity Transit deployed in the center lanes is
the ultimate configuration for I-90 in this segment;
2. Construction of R-8A should occur as soon as possible as a first step to the
ultimate configuration;
3. Upon completion of R-8A, move as quickly as possible to construct High
Capacity Transit in the center lanes;
4. Commit to the earliest possible conversion of center roadway to two-way
High Capacity Transit operation based on outcome of studies and funding
approvals.
5. Minimize construction impacts to the existing bicycle/pedestrian path, and
maintain safe access to the path during construction;
6. Maintain the existing width of the bicycle/pedestrian path and to install screen
treatments to create a safe barrier between the path users and vehicular traffic;
and
7. To the extent of any loss of mobility to and from Mercer Island based on the
outcome of studies, additional transit facilities and services such as additional
bus service, parking available for Mercer Island residents, and other measures
shall be identified and satisfactorily addressed by the Commission, in
consultation with the affected jurisdictions pursuant to paragraph 14 of the
Agreement, prior to the time the center roadway converts to High Capacity
Transit.
Cil
By
Its
City of Seattl
By:
Its: /h 4.
City of Bellevue
Div , aJ z
WashingtAn State
TransDOliationfo i
<-- - �---
Its:
Central Puget Sound
Regional Transit Authority
By: 1.
Its: ? �G CGG Gtv