040330i495finalhotlanesdetailedproposalreview implement …letter, are grouped under five areas of...

2000 Chippenham Parkway Richmond, Virginia 23234 Telephone: (804) 330-5215 Facsimile: (804) 560-9381 March 31, 2004 Mr. Malcolm T. Kerley, P.E. Chief Engineer for Program Development Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219-2000

Capital Beltway HOT Lanes PPTA Proposal Dear Mr. Kerley: On March 23, 2004, Ms. Sudha Mudgade forwarded to my attention a list of questions from Mr. Pierce Homer, Chairman of the Advisory Committee for 495 HOT Lanes PPTA Proposal. Fluor Daniel (Fluor) welcomes the opportunity to respond as requested to all the questions to the extent possible given the limited time available. Fluor’s clarification follows each of the Advisory Committee’s questions that are shown in a bold type face. 1. Most questions centered on the viability of the project from a traffic management

viewpoint, and an independent modeling of the traffic and levels of service on the proposed facility, specifically addressing the problems with, and solutions to, the merge/weave movements at the slip ramps, access to Tyson's corner, and excessive congestion at the north and south termini. This is the major topic for us to address tomorrow at our 11 am mtg at VDOT NoVa.

Two major issues are raised by this question: first, the adequacy of the traffic modeling and financial viability of the project and, second, the new design options requested to address the various weaving and access concerns. Following are Fluor's responses to both issues:

Traffic Modeling and Viability of the Project – Fluor is committed to provide an Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study that will answer all the traffic and revenue questions raised regarding the performance and financial viability of the Beltway HOT Lane concept upon selection. This investment grade study involves the development of a unique variable pricing/HOT lane model costing well over one million dollars, the cost of which is included in both our conceptual and detailed proposals. That commitment is described in "Project

SM

Mr. Malcolm T. Kerley, P.E. March 31, 2004

C:\Documents and Settings\brown_cl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\Gary Groat to M. Kerley VDOT 033104.doc

Development" page o-2 and included in our "Proposal Schedule" in section 2-I of the October 2003 Detailed Proposal. Once VDOT has signed an Initial Comprehensive Agreement, Fluor will at its own risk provide that study. New HOT Lanes Entry/Exit Options – In response to the March 23, 2004, PPTA Panel questions, past Fairfax County Board comments, and community input from a series of outreach presentations, several variations or options to Fluor's Capital Beltway HOT Lane proposal have been developed. These options, which are included as an attachment to this letter, are grouped under five areas of concern including: • Northern terminus of the HOT lanes (northbound) • Southern terminus of the HOT lanes at I-95 (southbound) • Minimize weaving on intermediate slip ramps • Direct HOT lanes entry/exit ramps to cross streets • Provide collector-distributor roads in the Tysons area

The concept plans and cost estimates indicate that acceptable design solutions are possible for each of these areas of concern. Some of these options are mutually exclusive and choices need to be made. These options will need to be further evaluated and tested using more detailed traffic data than are currently available. The investment grade HOT lane traffic model, once developed, will provide the detailed data necessary to validate these concepts.

It is also our understanding that VDOT may be conducting its own independent modeling for these newly developed options.

2. Clarify use of "surplus" revenues for transit operations and capital

Fluor has made no recommendation regarding the allocation of surplus revenues for transit or any other activity as part of our Capital Beltway HOT Lanes proposal. At the time we submitted our Detailed Proposal, proceeds from toll revenue bonds and TIFIA financing were not projected to cover the entire capital cost of the project, and consequently there was no expectation of significant “surplus” revenue after reimbursement of VDOT toll systems operations costs. VDOT may elect not to seek reimbursement for O&M expenses, which would make these funds available for other uses. If the more sophisticated traffic and revenue modeling allows Fluor to develop a more robust business plan, there would be the potential to cover both uses.

If a surplus were available, any use not directly related to the project would need the approval of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. By “surplus revenue," Fluor is referring to the allocation of toll receipts in excess of cash required in the Bond Indenture



prior to deposits to the Surplus Account. If VDOT would like to designate funds in the Surplus Account for transit, the business plan can be structured to do so.

3. Operational and enforcement costs that VDOT/VSP may be liable for

VDOT would be responsible for all toll systems and roadway operating costs including law and toll evasion enforcement. Any funds expended by VDOT for these purposes would be reimbursed from the excess of toll collections over payments required under the Bond Indenture. In the case of administrative expenses of the Issuer, these expenses could be either pledged senior to debt service or included in VDOT’s operating responsibilities at VDOT’s determination.

4. Air quality impacts

A preliminary study conducted by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) found that adding HOT lanes to the Beltway will result in a slight increase in the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and a moderate increase in oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions. COG also concluded that its estimates “are conservative, i.e., likely to overestimate emissions.” This conclusion is because the COG study did not account for emissions reductions associated with a decrease in cut-through traffic on adjacent streets and the projected reduction in traffic on the main lines of the Beltway. Furthermore, air quality issues will be fully addressed in the independent EIS analysis being conducted by VDOT. A copy of the full MWCOG report is found in Appendix D of Fluor's Detailed Proposal.

5. HOV restrictions/potential impact of HOT on HOV usage

Preliminary traffic analysis performed by Vollmer suggests that it is unlikely that there will be enough HOV3+ vehicles to cause the HOT lanes to fail. During peak travel periods, it is expected that there will be significantly more toll-paying vehicles than HOVs. A tolling policy must be developed and implemented to assure that HOT lane traffic is kept moving during all times of the day. This policy could involve raising toll rates when the average hourly vehicle count reaches a certain level or by adjusting the rates on a dynamic (real time) basis. In addition, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) will have the authority to determine the level of HOV occupancy.

6. Identify locations/options for better bus service/access

Tab 2-f "Transit Enhancements" of Fluor's Detailed Proposal provides a listing of the transit benefits of the Capital Beltway HOT Lanes concept for HOV users, express bus users, slug users, and the potential Metrorail Station access. Several of the new entry/exit concepts included in the New HOT Lanes Entry/Exit Options attachment will encourage enhanced and improved bus and Metrorail service in the corridor. The proposed addition of the Springfield



Interchange Phase VIII, direct ramp access to the Dunn Loring Metrorail station via Route 29 options, and new access to Tysons Corner are several examples. Rerouting existing bus routes to take advantage of the new direct ramps was addressed in a technical memo dated March 2004, which is attached to this letter.

7. Non-compete clause–how big or how small?

While VDOT has indicated it will likely not accept a comprehensive non-compete clause, Fluor would propose that there be a prohibition against further construction of free lanes in the Beltway. Given the level of congestion, the density of bordering real estate development in the Capital Beltway corridor, and the difficulty of environmental clearance for new capacity, we believe that the financial markets will not require a comprehensive non-compete agreement.

8. Cost of traffic management (maintain current flow) not included in proposal

All traffic management (maintaining current flow) costs, over the period of construction, are included in Fluor's proposal. In our proposal, we have estimated $44 million to provide traffic control and maintenance of traffic. Included in our estimate are the following:

• Temporary barrier • Temporary attenuators • Impact attenuator trucks • Temporary striping • Stripe removal • Temporary pavement • Changeable message boards • Lane closures • Traffic control crew • State Police for traffic control • Temporary signals at bridges • Barrels • Lights

9. Who operates: VDOT or Fluor?

Since the financial responsibility for operations is assumed to be with VDOT, the decision on operations is assumed to be with VDOT. Fluor has had meaningful discussions with a highly qualified operations firm that we would recommend as contract operator if VDOT elects to consider this option. We are prepared to present alternative operations solutions to VDOT for consideration during negotiation of our Initial Comprehensive Agreement for the project.

10. True cost of ROW and utilities included?



The Fluor Detailed Proposal concept stays almost entirely within the existing right-of-way. Currently, we estimate four residential relocations and possibly two more for a total of six will be required. In addition to these residential displacements, narrow strips of land at selected points along the right-of-way will be required. The six residences and limited right-of-way requirements have been identified in Tab 2-a of our Detailed Proposal. The cost of acquiring these properties was based upon 2003 estimated real property values. Fluor believes that the right-of-way estimate for our Detailed Proposal concept of $12.4 million is realistic. The Fluor team has identified 13 utility owners having facilities that will require an adjustment or mitigation. We have conducted both a field and mapping search to define all of the potential impacts. Based upon the knowledge and level of design at this stage, we believe the utility budgets are realistic.

11. How many public dollars actually needed?

Fluor's concept shown in our Detailed Proposal projects a public share of 13 percent of construction costs or a total of $91 million. As stated in the Detailed Proposal, our goal is to reduce the public share of project costs. This total does not include potential mitigation measures that may result from a NEPA Record of Decision. The cost of adding any of the new options discussed in Question 1 and its attachment is also not included in the $91 million public share. Depending upon which of the new options are ultimately selected, the $91 million public share could increase or decrease. For example, if the northbound HOT lanes are terminated at the Dulles Toll Road, that figure would decrease by $20 million to $71 million. If a direct ramp to Route 29 is added, the public share would increase by $28 million.

12. Define public participation process

In Fluor's Conceptual proposal, Tab 4-c "Public Involvement Strategy," we outlined our strategy and plans for informing agencies and the public in areas affected by the project. This process is ongoing and has involved meetings with local and state public officials and presentations to the Fairfax County Board and numerous community organizations along the Beltway corridor. Fluor has retained Edelman, a nationally known communications consultant, to assist in providing timely and accurate information on the content of Fluor's proposal. Attached is a partial listing of Fluor's public outreach efforts to date.

This public-participation effort by Fluor is not linked in anyway to the ongoing Capital Beltway Environmental Impact Study public participation effort, which is under VDOT's direction.

13. Identify all transit issues in one place



Fluor's Detailed Proposal identified the key transit issues and benefits in Tab 2-f "Transit Enhancements." Questions 2 and 6 also describe the Fluor responses to transit issues.

We will be glad to elaborate on any of our responses. We appreciate this opportunity to clarify our proposal and encourage your staff and consultants to contact us with any other questions. Sincerely, Herbert W. Morgan, P.E. Enclosures (4): New HOT Lanes Entry / Exit Options Analysis New HOT Lanes Entry / Exit Options Plans The Potential for Express Bus Service on the Capital Beltway Fluor Daniel HOT Lanes Public Outreach Activities

NEW HOT LANES ENTRY / EXIT OPTIONS OPTION 1 – NORTH TERMINUS (N.B.) • 1A – End HOT Lanes at Tysons Advantage: Build less toll road: construction savings of $30 million Direct access to Tysons II; minimize impeding of G.P. lanes Disadvantage: Less mileage to toll; puts Dulles bound traffic into G.P. lanes Additional R/W required • 1B – End HOT Lanes at Dulles Toll Road Advantage: Build less toll road: construction savings of $20 million; Minimize impeding of G.P. lanes Disadvantage: Less mileage to toll • 1C – Continue HOT Lanes to American Legion Bridge Advantage: Ties into MD HOT Lanes of any configuration Additional tolls because of more mileage Disadvantage: Unknown configuration of MD 10 lane section. Additional cost to be determined when Md. adds fifth lane. Additional R/W required. OPTION 2 – SOUTH TERMINUS AT I-95 / I-395 (S.B.) Advantage: Additional tolls (assumes I-95/395 has HOT Lanes) Disadvantage: No tolls to pay for construction if I-95 / I-395 are not HOT Additional cost of $ 80 million OPTION 3 – ELIMINATE WEAVING ON SLIP RAMPS • 3A – Entry / exit points separated or moved within the confines of interchange

having CD roads Advantage: Remove weave or locate where there is less traffic volume. Longer distance for lane changing to next interchange

Disadvantage: Additional cost of $2 million per ramp which is in an interchange. 5 slip ramps will be moved for an increased cost of $10 million.

• 3B – Separate entry and exit lanes Advantage: No weaving

Disadvantage: Additional cost of $1 million for each new ramp not placed under an interchange

OPTION 4 – DIRECT HOT LANES RAMPS TO CROSS STREETS • 4A – N.B. 495 to Jones Branch Drive Advantage: Direct access to Tysons II Disadvantage: Additional R/W required. Additional cost of $6 million. 4B – E.B. DAAR to S.B. I-495 HOT Advantage: HOT lane access to S.B. I-495 Disadvantage: Precludes 4C. Additional R/W required. Additional cost of $7 million. • 4C – S.B. 495 HOT to Jones Branch Drive Advantage: Direct access to Tysons II Disadvantage: Precludes 4B. Additional R/W required. Additional cost of $6 million. • 4D – Route 123 Advantage: Direct access to/from Route 123. Disadvantage: Additional cost of $26 million. Degradation of existing ramp alignments. Signal required within interchange. • 4E – Route 29 Advantage: Direct access to/from N.B. I-495 HOT to Route 29 and to/from Route 29 to S.B. I-495 HOT. Disadvantage: Additional cost of $28 million. Additional R/W required. Signal required on Route 29. • 4F – Route 50 Does not work due to complicated interchange and no access directly to Route 50

• 4G – Braddock Road Advantage: Direct access to/from Braddock Road. Disadvantage: Additional cost of $31 million. Additional R/W required, some from Park. Signal required within interchange • 4H – Little River Turnpike Advantage: Direct access to Little River Turnpike. Disadvantage: Additional cost of $ XX million. Additional R/W required, some from Park. • 4I – Jones Branch Drive to S.B. I-495 Advantage: Direct access from Tysons II to S.B. I-495. Disadvantage: Additional R/W required. Additional cost of $ XX million. ( Needs further study ) • 4J – N.B. I-495 to Boeing Court Advantage: Direct access from N.B. I-495 to Boeing Court Disadvantage: Additional R/W required. Ramp will go through a major business complex. Additional cost of $ XX million. • 4K – N.B. I-495 HOT Lanes to E.B. I-66 Advantage: Direct access from N.B. I-495 HOT to E.B. I-66. Disadvantage: Additional cost of $ XX million Does not meet AASHTO standards for successive ramp gores in a system interchange. Extends 2500’ eastward on E.B. I-66. May require closing ramp from N.B. I-495 to W.B. I-66 during construction. Traffic could use the loop ramp. OPTION 5 – TYSONS AREA CD ROADS • 5A – Route 123 Advantage: Eliminates mainline weaves between Routes 7 and 123 Disadvantage: Increased cost $ of 7 million. Degrades existing ramp alignments. Additional R/W required. Note 1. – Additional R/W and utility costs have not been included in the estimated costs above