1. Responses to the Request for Expressions of Interest November 20, 2007 Congestion Mitigation Commission

2. 1 WHY DO AN RFEI? Provide insights to the Commission on any technical or implementation challenges related to the mayor’s plan and alternatives/adjustments Gain formal comments on the implementation of pricing- and technology- based congestion mitigation systems from the firms with the deepest knowledge on the subject Gain input that can help shape an RFP to be issued after legislative determination of what plan will be adopted Begin work towards implementation in order to preserve the option for any plan to be implemented in time for the UPA-imposed deadline of March 31, 2009

3. 2 QUESTIONS ASKED IN RFEI Discuss ideas related to: Technology Choices E-ZPass License Plate Recognition Automatic Vehicle Identification Communications Interoperability with E-ZPass Operations Enforcement Maintenance Privacy Urban Design Traffic Data Monitoring Questions used Mayor’s plan as a base, but explicitly included consideration of some variations the Commission might endorse

4. 3 RESPONSES RECEIVED 3M with CSE Global Ltd and MSI Global Accenture Alcatel-Lucent Autostrade Booz Allen Boston Consulting Group Capita/CmaT Consulting Stream ConSysTec Diamond Consultants FlexToll HopStop IBM Global Business Services Kapsch TrafficCom AG KPMG Liberty Imaging MacroVision Majesco-Mastek Mark IV Northrup Grumman/Congestion Solutions Group PA Consult PBS&J Raytheon Remington ELSAG Law Enforcement Systems, LLC Siemens Skymeter SpeedInfo Steer Davies Gleave TransCore Wilbur Smith Associates 30 responses received from 30 firms or consortia Several were complete end-to-end consortia, but many responded to only one component or question Responses now available (excluding business-sensitive information) on EDC’s website (www.nycedc.com)

5. 4 ISSUES RAISED/FINDINGS FROM RFEI Wide response from firms with direct experience confirmed feasibility of the concept EZ-Pass, with license plate identification for non-EZ-Pass users, clearly the best approach Multiple concepts were suggested for providing uncharged travel on peripheral roadways Implementation schedule of March 31, 2009, was identified as ambitious, although several firms expressed confidence in achieving it. Key risks identified include communications system, urban design/approvals, field testing, and EZ-Pass IAG agreements Several firms proposed actions to reduce the risk of implementation delay: Flexibility in terms of authorizing legislation to allow the City to make decisions during implementation Fewer charging points to reduce extent of the system Phased implementation Several respondents proposed approaches to ensure privacy of data, including Timely elimination of unneeded records Encryption of any data transmitted wirelessly Protocols for use of data by employees Public education, outreach to specific impacted user groups, and signage will be necessary to ensure smooth start and ongoing operation, as was the case in London Question remains whether the project should have its own customer service center or be integrated into the existing NY E-ZPass Customer Service Center Separate back office may be necessary Incentives for increased EZ-Pass adoption are needed to streamline system and reduce operating costs Basic approach validated Implementation timeline ambitious Issues noted for focus in RFP Privacy concerns can be addressed

6. 5 NEXT STEPS City/EDC team will continue to analyze responses and may request meetings with some respondents Findings will inform technical input to Commission staff and development of framework for RFP RFP framework will serve as model for City to use if a congestion mitigation plan is adopted legislatively; if one is, the framework will be refined to suit the plan approved and issued Responses available from link on home page at www.nycedc.com