Responses to the Request for Expressions of Interest

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

2. 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. 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. RESPONSES RECEIVED • 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) • 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

5. ISSUES RAISED/FINDINGS FROM RFEI Basic approach validated • 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 Implementation timeline ambitious Privacy concerns can be addressed Issues noted for focus in RFP

6. 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