2013 MPIA of Bus Rapid Transit Emails Part 1

From: L. Mark Winston [mwinston@glazerwinston.
com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:44 PM
To:
Street, Thomas
Importance: High
Tom:
Perhaps we can talk first thing in the morning.
Mark
From: L. Mark Winston [mwinston@glazerwinston.com]

To:
Street, Thomas
Tom: Good afternoon. I need to speak with you either this afternoon or tomorrow
morning. Thanks. Mark
From: Dan Wilhelm [djwilhelm@verizon.net]

Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 2:24 PM
To:
BOE; Rice's Office, Councilmember; Leventhal's Office, Councilmember;
Riemer's Office, Councilmember; Elrich's Office, Councilmember; Floreen's Office,
Councilmember; Navarro's Office, Councilmember; Andrews's Office, Councilmember;
Berliner's Office, Councilmember; Ervin's Office, Councilmember; Flores, Bertha;
Orlin, Glenn; Farber, Steve; Ann Marimow; Lynn and Bernie Kapolott ; Margie Hyslop;
Spivack, Miranda (Washington Post Reporter); Parcher, Amber; Diane Lynne ;
'Elizabeth Molloy'; Rosemary Arkoian; Amy Presley; Casey Anderson; Francoise
Carrier ; Leslie Saville; Callum Murray; Glenn Kreger ; John Carter ; Khalid
Afzal; Kristin O'Connor; Mary Bradford ; Nancy Sturgeon ; Rob Gibbs ; Holmes,
Arthur; Jones, Diane; Gonzalez, Edgar; Kassiri, Fariba; Ike Leggett; Hughes,
Jennifer; Citizen, Mid-County; Nurmi, Joy; Alperson, Phil; Silverman, Steve;
Street, Thomas; Citizen, Upcounty
Subject:
FW: MCCF Newsletter and Awards Banquet
Attachments:
edited May - 2013 Awards Reservation Form.docx; May 13
Newsletter.pdf
All
The MCCF newsletter for May is attached.
If you have already make reservations for the awards banquet, thanks and ignore
this paragraph. The MCCF awards banquet is Friday May 3, less than two weeks from
now. Reservations are needed by April 26, only five days from now so we can give
the restaurant a head-count. Although in the newsletter, attached is another copy
of the reservation. Please send in the reservation and let me know you are doing
so.
Dan
From: Tina Slater [slater.tina@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 6:18 PM
To:
Dan Wilhelm; David Moon; Francine Waters; Genn, Jonathan; Winston, Mark;
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Fwd: Curtis cartoon of Wednesday April 17, 2013 --- BRT
Just sent the following to the Gazette editor about this week's cartoon:
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Tina Slater <slater.tina@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:13 PM
Subject: Curtis cartoon of Wednesday April 17, 2013 --- BRT
To: opinions@gazette.net
Dear Mr.
Tallman:
Regarding the Curtis cartoon of Wednesday April 17, 2013

http://www.gazette.net/article/20130417/OPINION/130419116/1014/chris-curtiscartoon-for-april-17-2013&template=gazette
Loved the picture!!
Thanks for showing the traffic jam.
Boo on the slogan!
When people are sitting in cars, cussing the traffic, a BRT vehicle flying by will
be its own advertisement.
Not everyone will use it, but those who do can relax
(read, text, snooze) and leave the driving to the bus driver. Think of the August
effect when you can get a seat on Metro or drive to work in less time. Thats
what BRT can offer every day!
Sincerely,
Tina Slater
402 Mansfield Rd.
Silver Spring, MD 20910-5515
301-585-5038
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:00 AM

To:
'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; Wilhelm, Dan; 'Dan Wilhelm'; Genn, Jonathan
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Communities for Transit, Inc. - Executive Director
Attachments:
CFT Moon Letter Agreement Signed.pdf
Ladies and Gentlemen: Attached please find letter agreement between CFT and David
Moon concerning his appointment as Executive Director. Now we should really begin.
Mark
________________________________
From: captainmoon@gmail.com [mailto:captainmoon@gmail.com] On Behalf Of David Moon
To: L. Mark Winston
Subject: Re: Communities for Transit, Inc. - Executive Director
Here is a signed copy (in pdf form).
Thanks!
David Moon
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 7:58 AM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>
wrote:
April 16, 2013
David: Good morning. Attached is the draft of the Letter Agreement on which we
have agreed. The Executive Committee of CFT has approved the document and
authorized entering into the arrangement. We are all very pleased that you are
joining us in this important effort. I will send the attachments referred to in
the Letter Agreement in separate emails shortly. Please sign the Letter Agreement
in the space provided and return same to me in a PDF. I will then sign the Letter
Agreement and return a fully-executed counterpart to you. Thanks.
Mark

Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 7:58 AM
To:
'David Moon'
Cc:
'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; Wilhelm, Dan; 'Dan Wilhelm'; Genn, Jonathan
Subject:
Communities for Transit, Inc. - Executive Director
Attachments:
CFT-Moon Letter Agreement, Final, 04-16-13.doc
April 16, 2013
David: Good morning. Attached is the draft of the Letter Agreement on which we
have agreed. The Executive Committee of CFT has approved the document and
authorized entering into the arrangement. We are all very pleased that you are
joining us in this important effort. I will send the attachments referred to in
the Letter Agreement in separate emails shortly. Please sign the Letter Agreement
in the space provided and return same to me in a PDF. I will then sign the Letter
Agreement and return a fully-executed counterpart to you. Thanks.
Mark

To:
'Dan Wilhelm'; 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; Wilhelm, Dan; Genn, Jonathan
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: Communities for Transit, Inc. - Executive Director Engagement
Letter
Dan: Good morning. Thanks for the comment. I believe you will find the reference
to the manner of serving or delivering notice found earlier in the paragraph in
which the quoted language is found. Mark
________________________________
From: Dan Wilhelm [mailto:djwilhelm@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 7:34 PM
To: L. Mark Winston; 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; 'Dan Wilhelm'; 'Jonathan
Genn'
Cc: 'Street, Thomas'
Subject: RE: Communities for Transit, Inc. - Executive Director Engagement Letter
Mark.
Good piece of work. One small question. In the sentence that says:
This document and any other document or communication between the parties, may be
signed in separate counterparts and delivered by any means permitted for a notice
hereunder,
shouldnt there be an indication somewhere of the permitted delivery means? I would

think the means would be US mail, email, fax or courier with email be the preferred
on.
Dan
From: L. Mark Winston [mailto:mwinston@glazerwinston.com]

Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 11:14 AM
To: Tina Slater; 'Francine Waters'; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; 'Jonathan Genn'
Subject: Communities for Transit, Inc. - Executive Director Engagement Letter
04-15-13
Ladies and Gentlemen: Attached, please find a draft Letter Agreement between CFT
and David Moon. Please review it as soon as possible and give me any comments you
may have. David has already reviewed and approved this draft. I would like to get
this completed today if possible. Thanks. Mark

To:
Dan Wilhelm; Francine Waters; Genn, Jonathan; Winston, Mark; Street, Thomas;
David Moon
Subject:
Rockefeller makes BRT grants to 4 US cities & other BRT news
Last week I started following Benjamin de la Pena (Rockefeller) on Twitter when I
saw this:
Rockefeller Foundation Announces $1.2M Grant to Support Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) In
Four U.S. Cities -- Boston, Chicago, Nashville and Pittsburgh selected for project
as part of the Foundation's work to promote equitable, sustainable transportation

April 10, 2013 / Press Releases - http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/pressreleases/rockefeller-foundation-announces-1-2m
Also, BRT has been getting coverage in GreaterGreaterWashington -by Dan Malouff Apr 10, 2013 -- Richmond maps out better transit network -- only one
BRT line, but network of priority bus corridors & bike infrastructure
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/18441/richmond-maps-out-a-better-transitnetwork/
by Dan Malouff Jan 17, 2013 -- There are only 5 "true" BRT systems in the US and
none are rated Gold - The 5 cities are Cleveland, Eugene, LA, Pittsburgh & Las
Vegas (but approx. 20 US cities have at least one line they "call BRT")
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/17389/the-us-has-only-5-true-brt-systemsand-none-are-gold/
-- Tina
To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Montgomery County Board Vacancies
Importance: High
Tom: Good morning. I received the below email. Please note the reference to the
Washington Suburban Transit Commission. You will recall that this is the agency to
which Metro Board Members representing Maryland (including Montgomery County) are
appointed. I want to make sure that it is unnecessary for me to submit an
application for this vacancy. Thanks. Mark
________________________________
From: MCG eSubscription [mailto:NoReply@eSub.montgomerycountymd.gov]
To: L. Mark Winston
Subject: Montgomery County Board Vacancies
County Executive Isiah Leggett is committed to representation on all of the

Countys boards, committees, and commissions that is reflective of, and responsive
to, our Countys residents. Public participation contributes to the work of County
government and provides an important service to the community when a variety of
issues, concerns, and viewpoints are presented. Currently, there is a valuable
opportunity to serve on the following:
*
Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs
*
*
*
Property Tax Assessment Appeal Board

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
Washington Suburban Transit Commission
The deadline for application is May 3, 2013.

Please share this notice with anyone who may be interested. You may access vacancy
announcements for boards, committees, and commissions through the following link.
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/exec/vacancies/pr_list.asp
<http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/exec/vacancies/pr_list.asp>
Applicants of diverse backgrounds, professions, gender, geography, disability and
ethnicity are encouraged to apply. An application, consisting of a brief cover
letter and resume, should be sent by mail to County Executive Isiah Leggett, 101
Monroe Street, 2nd Floor, Rockville, MD 20850, or by email to
countyexecutive.boards@montgomerycountymd.gov
<mailto:countyexecutive.boards@montgomerycountymd.gov> . Home and employment
addresses, as well as contact phone numbers and email addresses should be included.
If appropriate, applicants should indicate the position for which they are
applying.
Members of County boards, committees and commissions may not serve on more than one
such group at a time. Members of these boards are eligible for reimbursement for
travel and dependent care for meetings attended. Leggetts appointments are subject
to confirmation by the County Council. Applications of individuals selected for
appointment are made public as part of the confirmation process.
Unsubscribing
You received this email because you have signed up for the Board Vacancies
newsletter from Montgomery County eSubscription. If you want to unsubscribe to this
newsletter, Go to eSubscription <http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/eSubscription> ,
and select Update An Account. When you see the list of newsletters to which you are
subscribed, check off Board Vacancies newsletter.
Privacy Policy <http://montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgtmpl.asp?
url=/content/mcginfo/siteFiles/privacy.asp> | Accessibility
<http://montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgtmpl.asp?
url=/content/mcginfo/siteFiles/privacy.asp>
As an eSubscriber user, you agreed that we may contact you by email and use the
information you submit as described in the Montgomery County Privacy Policy
<http://montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgtmpl.asp?
url=/content/mcginfo/siteFiles/privacy.asp> . If you would like to opt-out of
receiving a particular email at this email address, then please unsubscribe
<http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/eSubscription> to indicate your preferences.
Please do not reply to this email. Replies to this email will not be responded to
or read. If you have any questions or comments, please visit the MC311 Portal at
www.montgomerycountymd.gov/311 or call 240-777-0311 to speak with a Customer
Service Representative.
To:
Tina Slater; 'Francine Waters'; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Communities for Transit, Inc. - Executive Director Engagement Letter
Attachments:
Moon Letter Agreement, Draft 2, 04-15-13.doc
04-15-13
Ladies and Gentlemen: Attached, please find a draft Letter Agreement between CFT
and David Moon. Please review it as soon as possible and give me any comments you
may have. David has already reviewed and approved this draft. I would like to get
this completed today if possible. Thanks. Mark

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: CFT - Executive Director
Can we set a time when I can speak with you today?
________________________________
From: Street, Thomas [mailto:Tom.Street@montgomerycountymd.gov]
To: L. Mark Winston
Subject: FW: CFT - Executive Director
Thanks for keeping me in the loop.
Sounds like he will do a great job for the CFT.

Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:12 PM
To: 'Tina Slater'; Mark Winston
Cc: 'Francine Waters'; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject: RE: CFT - Executive Director
Great!
From: Tina Slater [mailto:slater.tina@gmail.com]

To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject: Re: CFT - Executive Director
Sounds excellent! -- Tina
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:56 PM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>

wrote:
04-11-13
Confidential
Ladies and Gentlemen: I am pleased to tell you that David Moon and I had a good
conversation this morning about his becoming Executive Director of CFT. We
discussed his compensation as well as his thoughts about other staff for CFT, and
the likely cost of engaging them. He envisions an Executive Director, a Project
Manager (or his deputy) and an administrative person as the team. Of course, this
may be modified when he developed his proposed plan. He also mentioned several
areas of needed expenditure and I can report to you that funding for those purposes
appears to be available in the budget previously approved by the Rockefeller
Foundation in the Grant Letter Agreement. David also understands that his first
substantive task will be to review our grant application and the Grant Letter
Agreement to understand the scope of what we proposed preliminarily as a part of
developing a new operating plan for CFT. Depending on what he proposes, it may be
necessary for us to present some revisions to our program to RF for its approval.
I do not anticipate problems with this.
I suggested to David that he speak with his accountant to get advice on

whether he would prefer to be an employee of CFT or to be engaged as an
independent contractor. I hope to hear from him on this tomorrow and then to
finalize a proposal to present to you for review and approval. I propose that I
present this to you by email. If any member of the Executive Committee thinks it
necessary to discuss the matter, we can do that by telephone conference. I believe
time is of the essence and hope we can reach unanimous agreement as soon as
possible.
I have been impressed with David. As those who have known him
previously have said, he is smart, he understands the issues in which we are
interested, he seems to share the perspective of those who believe meaningful
action on improved transit along the lines of our RTV proposal is necessary, and he
seems to have the energy and talent to take on day-to-day leadership of the
organization. I hope we can finalize an arrangement with him in the next couple of
days.
As soon as we have reached agreement with him, I will contact those who
have submitted resumes, and especially Charlie Scott, to thank them for their
interest and advising them that we have gone in a different direction.
Beyond this immediate task of our finalizing appointment of the

Executive Director, I will turn my attention to reaching out to prospective board
members so that we can pull that group together and bring them into the fold. We
will schedule a meeting of the new board to coincide with the time that David will
be prepared to present his new plan and any necessary budgetary changes.
Finally, we also need to focus on the formation of the 501(c)(4)

entity. There are issues of its leadership, funding and other questions that need
to be discussed. Without objection, I will work with Jonathan Genn to prepare a
preliminary proposal for how to proceed.
Thanks.
Mark

Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:20 PM
To:
'Michael Boone'
Cc:
Street, Thomas; Miller, Keith
Subject:
RE: Montgomery County Executive Transit Task Force - Rockefeller
Foundation Grant # 2011 TRA 328 - Narrative Report and Financial Report as of
September 30, 2012
Mike: Would you please ask Keith to send the following email to Benjamin de la
Pena on behalf of the Transit Task Force? Thanks.
Dear Ben: I am writing this as the Executive Director of the

Montgomery County Revenue Authority, on behalf of the County Executives Transit
Task Force in connection with the above-referenced grant. Please accept this
communication as a request for an extension of the above referenced grant from The
Rockefeller Foundation through and including June 30, 2013. The purpose of this
extension is to enable the Task Force to complete a study relating to the Transit
Corridors Functional Master Plan now under consideration by the Montgomery County
Planning Board. The Functional Plan is the master planning document under which
the County designates transit corridors to be used for the proposed bus rapid
transit system.
The Task Force has engaged The Traffic Group, inc. to perform this
additional work as a supplement to the agreement it had previously with The Traffic
Group involving studies of how the network proposed could be built on the roadways
in question. The additional work involves an analysis of alternative ways to avoid
the use of general mixed traffic in designing transit corridors, and related
subjects. I understand that we are able to re-allocate the remaining balance in
the grant to this purpose without additional specific approval.
Thank you for your consideration.
Keith Miller
Executive Director
Thanks very much.
mark
________________________________
From: Michael Boone [mailto:mboone@mcra-md.com]
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: 'Street, Thomas'; Keith Miller
Subject: RE: Montgomery County Executive Transit Task Force - Rockefeller
September 30, 2012
Mark,
Here is the financial report.
Mike

To: Michael Boone
Subject: FW: Montgomery County Executive Transit Task Force - Rockefeller
September 30, 2012
Importance: High
Mike: Please see incoming email from Ben de la Pena at Rockefeller Foundation.
Could you prepare a third tab on the financial report showing the same amounts as
of April 1, 2013. Please send that to me and I will forward to Ben (with a copy to
you). I have the narrative ready to go. Thanks. Mark
________________________________
From: De La Pena, Benjamin [mailto:BdelaPena@rockfound.org] <mailto:
%5bmailto:BdelaPena@rockfound.org%5d>
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: 'Street, Thomas'; 'Keith Miller'; 'Michael Boone'
September 30, 2012
Importance: High
Following up on this. We need the letter asking for an extension and an amendment.
I also realized that you sent me the same interim report that you sent the last
time you asked for an extension. (Report ending Sept. 30, 2012) well need a
report that picks up at whats happened since then. (From October 1, 2012 to at
least April 1, 2013).
Also following up on a check in meeting, re the current grant to Communities for

Transit. We havent heard any news about the progress. Has CFT been granted 501c3
status? Have you hired an executive director?
From: De La Pena, Benjamin

Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:51 AM
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Street, Thomas; Keith Miller; 'Michael Boone'
September 30, 2012
Thanks, Mark.
This becomes the interim narrative and financial report Ill also still need a
formal request for the extension and budget amendment.
From my earlier email:
Ill need a formal letter requesting the extension and outlining the reasons for
the extension.
We will also need (what will now be) the interim financial and narrative reports.
Benjamin de la Pea
The Rockefeller Foundation

Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 2:24 PM
To: De La Pena, Benjamin
Subject: Montgomery County Executive Transit Task Force - Rockefeller Foundation
Grant # 2011 TRA 328 - Narrative Report and Financial Report as of September 30,
2012
03-27-13
Benjie: Attached please find a PDF containing the above-referenced reports.

apologize for the delay in submitting them. Mark

To:
'De La Pena, Benjamin'
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Montgomery County Executive Transit Task Force - Rockefeller
September 30, 2012
Attachments:
rockefeller grant budget 4 1 13.xlsx
04-10-13
Ben:
Mark
Attached please find the up-dated financial report through April 1, 2013.
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
September 30, 2012
Mark,
Here is the financial report.
Mike

To: Michael Boone
Subject: FW: Montgomery County Executive Transit Task Force - Rockefeller
September 30, 2012
Importance: High
Mike: Please see incoming email from Ben de la Pena at Rockefeller Foundation.
Could you prepare a third tab on the financial report showing the same amounts as
of April 1, 2013. Please send that to me and I will forward to Ben (with a copy to
you). I have the narrative ready to go. Thanks. Mark
________________________________
From: De La Pena, Benjamin [mailto:BdelaPena@rockfound.org] <mailto:
%5bmailto:BdelaPena@rockfound.org%5d>
To: L. Mark Winston
September 30, 2012
Importance: High


To: L. Mark Winston
September 30, 2012
Thanks, Mark.
the extension.
Benjamin de la Pea

2012
03-27-13


To:
Cc:
Street, Thomas; Miller, Keith; 'Michael Boone'
Subject:
September 30, 2012
Attachments:
Narrative Report 3-31-13.docx
Ben: Attached please find the narrative report through March 31, 2013. I will
forward an up-dated financial report to you when received from the Revenue
Authority. The Executive Committee of Communities for Transit, Inc. has a meeting
this evening and I will report to you on that matter in the next day. Thanks.
Mark
________________________________
From: De La Pena, Benjamin [mailto:BdelaPena@rockfound.org]
To: L. Mark Winston
September 30, 2012
Importance: High


To: L. Mark Winston
September 30, 2012
Thanks, Mark.
the extension.
Benjamin de la Pea

2012
03-27-13


To:
Street, Thomas
Tom: Are you planning to join us tonight to interview David Moon?
anything we should discuss? Mark
Is there
From: Francine Waters [fwaters@Lerner.com]

To:
Mark Winston; 'slater.tina@gmail.com'; Dan Wilhelm; 'djwilhelm@verizon.net';
Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: Tonight's Meeting and Dinner
Attachments:
image001.jpg
Would love pizza! Preference is sausage From: L. Mark Winston [mailto:mwinston@glazerwinston.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 09:46 AM
To: Tina Slater <slater.tina@gmail.com>; Francine Waters; 'Wilhelm, Dan'
<dwilhelm@mitre.org>; Dan Wilhelm <djwilhelm@verizon.net>; Jonathan Genn
<jonathan@percontee.com>; Street, Thomas <Tom.Street@montgomerycountymd.gov>
Subject: Tonight's Meeting and Dinner
Tina, Francine, Dan, Jonathan and Tom:
In light of the fact that our meeting this evening is scheduled for
6:30, I suggest that we order pizza for dinner. Please send me a note with your
preference of toppings and I will have it here by 6:15pm. Thanks. Mark
<http://www.lerner.com>
****ATTENTION****
This e-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended exclusively
for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or
other use of this e-mail and any attachments hereto is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by
telephone and delete this e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.
To:
Tina Slater; Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn;
Street, Thomas; 'Kelly Blynn'
Cc:
'Wes Guckert'
Subject:
FW: County-Wide Transit Corridor Special Master Plan
Attachments:
Corridor Master Plan Comments.pdf
Confidential
04-10-13
Ladies and Gentlemen: Attached please find comments on the appendices to the
Public Hearing Draft of the Functional Plan prepared by Wes Guckert for your
review. We will have an opportunity to review and discuss these comments in
relation to the additional work-product that we will receive from Wes. Please
circulate any comments you may have to the addressees of this email. Thanks. Mark
________________________________
From: Wes Guckert [mailto:wguckert@trafficgroup.com]
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Wes Guckert
Subject: County-Wide Transit Corridor Special Master Plan
Wes Guckert
President
The Traffic Group, Inc.
9900 Franklin Square Dr. - Suite H
Baltimore, MD 21236
T 410.931.6600
F 410.931.6601
wguckert@trafficgroup.com <mailto:sbrown@trafficgroup.com>
www.trafficgroup.com
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential information intended only

for the use of the individual or entity named above. The review, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication to anyone other than the intended
addressee is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
promptly notify the sender by return email, and permanently delete this message
from your computer. Thank you.
To:
Street, Thomas
Cc:
White, Julie
Subject:
Task Force Meeting and Materials
Attachments:
Cover note to Task Force Members, 04-09-13.doc; Task Force
Comments - Circulation Draft, 4-9-13.doc
04-10-13
Tom and Julie: Lets schedule a meeting of the Transit Task Force for 7:00 pm on
Thursday, April 25th, in the Large Conference Room on the 9th Floor of the EOB.
Please incorporate the attached cover note Task Force Members when
sending an email to them. All members and ex officio members should be included.
Notice should also be placed on the Task Force website. Please insert the link of
the Public Hearing Draft of the Functional Plan in the blank space indicated for it
on the cover note.
Also please attach to the email sent to Task Force Members the draft of
Task Force Comments, also attached to this email.
Thanks very much.
Mark

To:
Mark Winston
Cc:
Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; Casey Anderson;
Kelly Blynn; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: FW: Dates for TTF Meeting
Yes, it works for me as well. - Tina
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:03 AM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>
wrote:
The email below from Julie White gives alternative dates for the Task Force
meeting. I propose that we set Thursday, April 25th from 7:00 pm to 9:30pm.
Before asking Julie to set that up I would appreciate feedback from you as to your
ability to attend at that time. Thanks. Mark
________________________________
From: White, Julie [mailto:Julie.White@montgomerycountymd.gov]
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Street, Thomas
Subject: Dates for TTF Meeting
Hi Mark: Ive reserved the EOB, 9th Floor large conference room for Tuesday,
April 16, Tuesday, April 23, Wednesday, April 24 or Thursday, April 25 from 6 to 10
p.m. (except for 4/25 from 6:30 to 10 p.m.) for a Transit Task Force Meeting.
Tom wants to know which date works best for you and I will cancel the other
dates.
Thank you,
Julie
Julie L. White
Senior Executive Administrative Aide
Offices of the County Executive
240-777-2532
240-777-2517 (fax)

To:
Mark Winston; Tina Slater; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; Casey
Anderson; 'Kelly Blynn'; Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: Dates for TTF Meeting
Attachments:
image002.png; image003.jpg
Date/time works for me --
FRANCINE WATERS
SENIOR MANAGING DIRECTOR | TRANSPORTATION | SMART GROWTH
LERNER
2000 Tower Oaks Boulevard
Eighth Floor
Rockville, Maryland 20852
301.692.2563
direct tel
FWaters@Lerner.com <mailto:fwaters@Lerner.com>
<http://www.lerner.com/>
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.

To: Tina Slater; Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; 'Jonathan Genn'; 'Casey
Anderson'; 'Kelly Blynn'; 'Street, Thomas'
Subject: FW: Dates for TTF Meeting
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Street, Thomas
Hi Mark: Ive reserved the EOB, 9th Floor large conference room for Tuesday, April
16, Tuesday, April 23, Wednesday, April 24 or Thursday, April 25 from 6 to 10 p.m.
(except for 4/25 from 6:30 to 10 p.m.) for a Transit Task Force Meeting.
Tom wants to know which date works best for you and I will cancel the other dates.
Thank you,
Julie
Julie L. White
240-777-2532
240-777-2517 (fax)
****ATTENTION****
To:
Tina Slater; 'Francine Waters'; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn;
Casey Anderson; 'Kelly Blynn'; Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Dates for TTF Meeting
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Street, Thomas
Hi Mark: Ive reserved the EOB, 9th Floor large conference room for Tuesday, April
16, Tuesday, April 23, Wednesday, April 24 or Thursday, April 25 from 6 to 10 p.m.
(except for 4/25 from 6:30 to 10 p.m.) for a Transit Task Force Meeting.
Tom wants to know which date works best for you and I will cancel the other dates.
Thank you,
Julie
Julie L. White
240-777-2532
240-777-2517 (fax)

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Transit Task Force Cross-Sections_04-09-2013.pdf
Attachments:
Transit Task Force Cross-Sections_04-09-2013.pdf; ATT00001.txt
See attached.
-----Original Message----From: Wes Guckert [mailto:wguckert@trafficgroup.com]
To: L. Mark Winston
Subject: Transit Task Force Cross-Sections_04-09-2013.pdf
For your review please

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Transit Task Force
Tom:
Good morning.
See below.
________________________________
One more to come.
Mark

To: L. Mark Winston
Subject: Transit Task Force
later today , I will forward to you 3 cross section option typicals
A. Median RTS & station at intersection , keeping left turn lanes plus adding the
required Bike lanes and the amount of NEW ROW needed
B. Dedicated RTS lane curb side dedicated with bike lanes & AMOUNT OF new row
NEEDED
c. REPURPOSED curb lane , NO bike lane needed , and no new ROW needed
Then we will work up the spreadsheet comparing ( 3 routes ) cross sections for
MNCPPC , The Traffic group, and the NO LANE SHARING options.
The goal is to show required ROW so there is no lane sharing of cars and RTS, and
if no repurposing, how much ROW is needed .
It will typically be 16 ft additional ROW along each side of the road if we need to
keep the left turn lanes and add bike lanes
Of course NEW ROW issues include

1. ROW cost
2. relocated curbs and sidewalks, and tree panels, and trees
3. underground utilities
4. above ground utility poles


To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Task Force Comments on Public Hearing Draft of the Countywide
Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan
Tom: Based on the below, I guess we are in a position to finalize and circulate
the draft comments. I will make a few more edits and then prepare a draft cover
note to Task Force Members. Could you speak with Julie and get a few alternative
dates before the end of April for a Task Force meeting. I suppose we should try
for a meeting either in the Bethesda Regional Center or in the EOB at an available
conference room. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Mark
________________________________
From: Holmes, Arthur [mailto:Arthur.Holmes@montgomerycountymd.gov]
To: L. Mark Winston; Roshdieh, Al
Cc: Erenrich, Gary
Subject: RE: Task Force Comments on Public Hearing Draft of the Countywide Transit
Corridors Functional Master Plan
Thank you for sharing the Task Forces comments on the Countywide Transit Corridors
Functional Master Plan. In general I believe that your comments are constructive
and helpful to the RTS process. However, I cannot formally endorse the comments at
this time since I am awaiting my staff review of the Public Hearing Draft.
Arthur Holmes, Jr., Director

Department of Transportation
Montgomery County, Maryland
240-777-7170
arthur.holmes@montgomerycountymd.gov
To: Holmes, Arthur; Roshdieh, Al
Subject: Task Force Comments on Public Hearing Draft of the Countywide Transit
04-05-13
Gentlemen: As I mentioned to Al after Director Holmes had to leave this mornings

finance meeting, an informal group of Task Force members has gotten together to
discuss how we should address and comment on the above document. We have drafted
the attached comments and before circulating it to the Task Force we wanted to
share it with you for any comments or suggestions you may have. Obviously, we hope
that you will be able to join us in supporting the attached comments. Thanks.
Mark

To:
Holmes, Arthur; Roshdieh, Al
Subject:
Task Force Comments on Public Hearing Draft of the Countywide Transit
Attachments:
Task Force Comments Draft 6, 4-5-13.doc
04-05-13
Gentlemen: As I mentioned to Al after Director Holmes had to leave this mornings

finance meeting, an informal group of Task Force members has gotten together to
discuss how we should address and comment on the above document. We have drafted
the attached comments and before circulating it to the Task Force we wanted to
share it with you for any comments or suggestions you may have. Obviously, we hope
that you will be able to join us in supporting the attached comments. Thanks.
Mark

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE:
By the way, while not commenting on the specific amounts and categories in the
attachment, if we simply combine the $226mm for the CCT and the $10mm for
something for the BRT system, the total is $325mm. If you divide that by 6, that
is $54.16mm per year. If the State would commit to that level of annual funding
for the RTS, that would support $984 mm in capital bonds (using todays interest
rates). I believe that represents more than of the capital costs of the build
out of the corridor network presented in the Planning Staffs Draft Functional Plan
and the CCT. For example, taking stage 1 of the CCT at a cost of $300mm, plus $1.1
billion for the 80 miles more or less of the Functional Plan, plus $200mm in
unallocated capital costs, total capital costs would be $1.6 billion. At todays
interest rates, this would require approximately $88mm to carry the capital bonds
on the project (and that does not adjust for the fact that we would probably only
borrow about 85% of total project costs). This would require County special taxing
districts to contribute approximately $34 mm per year to capital, plus operating
subsidies, in order to finance the project. Even if we apply the inefficient
assumption of $1.1 mm per mile for operating costs, and if we assume that the
deficit is 75% of costs, the annual subsidy for a 95 mile network would be
approximately $78 mm.
Thus, total annual requirements (and this does not take into account ramping up of
capital and operating costs) at stabilization would be approximately $166mm, with
the State contributing $54 mm in this scenario, and the special taxing districts
(and other sources of funding) contributing $112mm. This means that the State
contributes about 1/3 of the required amount. I bet if we go back to the
projections of the Task Force Finance Working Group we werent far off.
In any
event, we need to discuss this.
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Subject: FW:
Mark
You may not share this with anyone, and you cannot acknowledge that you have it or
have seen it. There is still a lot of motion that is possible, but I wanted you to
be informed on the latest iteration of the financial picture.
Will try and talk to you later this morning.
From: Wenger, Melanie

To: Firestine, Timothy; Street, Thomas
Subject: FW:
fyi.
________________________________
I have meetings until 10:00 a.m.

To: Gonzalez, Edgar
Subject:
Edgar --
Here you go.
I need to let OMB know that the Ride On operating subsidy is 85 over 6 years -- not
18 per year (more like 14) AND it's not clear how it will be divied out by year.
so, no one should plan just yet on picking up what is now 14 (not 18) in FY 14....
Also, not public yet, but, MDOT will be issuing RFI's on Monday for both the Purple
and Red Lines.
Finally, also of note, based on my conversation today -- and once again telling
MDOT that we did not plan on paying for the P Line -- I was made aware that the
funding gap could be filled by phasing this project / other transit projects in a
different manner. so, that at least opens the door to MoCo not necessarily having
to come up with 150 million or so to make up the difference in State funding that
they are currently showing.
Finally finally -- I'd ask that you be somewhat careful with the distribution of
this list.
Thx for all your help on this.
Melanie
240-888-0308
________________________________
From: Gonzalez, Edgar
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 8:57 AM
To: Wenger, Melanie
Subject: RE: Status of our final "ask"
That is perfectly OK.
E
Thanks.

To: Gonzalez, Edgar
Subject: RE: Status of our final "ask"
I think you and I have the same lists -- just need to

But, before sharing anything, I'd like to circle back
could look one more time at the list they had to make
that was on my list yesterday but I didn't get around
will try to do that this morning or this afternoon.
add on RManno's $3 million.

around to MDOT to see if I
sure my list is accurate.
to it. if you can wait, I
________________________________
From: Gonzalez, Edgar
To: Wenger, Melanie
Subject: Status of our final "ask"
Melanie,
Some of the Division Chiefs wanted to know what was the final deal . I have told
them about the previous ask, and how things had developed up to the day leading to
the final Senate vote.
Do you have a final list that can be shared with Art?
share with Division Chiefs?
Also, would it be OK to
Edgar
To:
'Michael Boone'
Cc:
Street, Thomas; Miller, Keith
Subject:
RE: Rockefeller Grant
There will be no return of the remaining balance. We will be requesting an
extension of the grant which we hope will be granted so that we can pay The
Traffic Group, Inc. for a small further study as an amendment to the prior
agreement with them.
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Subject: RE: Rockefeller Grant
Hi Mark.
Here is the final report for the grant.
I added a tab to the 9-30-12 file.
The balances are the same as 9-30-12.
We are ready to return the remaining balance.

Jennifer Cooper.
We received wiring instructions from
Mike

Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:40 PM
To: Michael Boone
Subject: Rockefeller Grant
03-28-13
Mike: Good afternoon. In connection with a request I am making of Ben de la Pena

at RF to extend the grant and allow us to spend money on some further traffic
study, Ben has asked for an up-dated financial statement. I do not believe there
has been any activity since the September 30th statement; however, I would
appreciate it if you could generate a new report as of tomorrow (if possible).
Thanks very much. Mark

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: RESUME
Tom:
What I propose to do is reconcile the comments, prepare another draft and
send it to you for review. We are, after all, the County Executives task force
and I want to be sure that, as his representative, you are comfortable with what is
put on the table for discussion by the Task Force at the meeting to be scheduled.
Also, your input and support would be helpful as we present this to

Director Holmes and Deputy Director Roshdieh in the next few days. My goal in
those conversations is to get them to support our position or at the least to
express views consistent with it. I propose to initiate the process with them by a
telephone call to Al letting him know what we are doing and why, and telling him
that I will send them a draft for their comments before circulating it to the Task
Force for discussion at the meeting to be set.
Recognizing that MCDOT may object to the Task Force being activated
for this purpose, it seems to me that the County Executives office needs to be
prepared to hear from them to that effect. Perhaps we can talk sometime this
morning after you have had the chance to take a quick look at Jonathans and Dans
comments. Thanks.
Mark
________________________________
To: Jonathan Genn; Tina Slater; Dan Wilhelm
Cc: L. Mark Winston; Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm
Subject: RE: RESUME
Not that I have a say in the matter, but I agree w/ Jonathan.
From: Jonathan Genn [mailto:Jonathan@Percontee.com]

To: Tina Slater; Dan Wilhelm
Cc: Mark Winston; Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas
Subject: RE: RESUME
Both Tina and Dan make excellent points.
My suggestion would be that we wait to make any decision on meeting with Ms. Garcia
Colberg until after we meet with David Moon.
While Tina raises good points about Kelly's participation in our interview process,
on balance, I think it best that we conduct interviews without Kelly. We all
admire Kelly. And from what I can tell from my dealings with Kelly, I'm confident
that Kelly will be able to work with whomever we choose. So I think we should keep
this an internal matter and make the decision on who we think will be best for our
organization.
Just my thoughts....
Jonathan
Jonathan M. Genn, Esquire

Executive Vice President and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Silver Spring, MD 20904
Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Telephone:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Fax:
301-622-3507
Cell:
Email:
410-935-2599
jonathan@percontee.com
________________________________
To: Wilhelm, Dan
Cc: L. Mark Winston; Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject: Re: RESUME
Mark --
I think the applicant sounds like she has very applicable experience. No Va
Transportation Commission, where she has worked since 2011 (and per the NVTC March
minutes, she is still on staff there) is an organization with some pretty heavy
hitters in the transportation/transit realm --- For example, Chris Zimmerman & Dave
Snyder, are both on COG's Transportation Planning Board and are definitely key
members and well-respected. Also on the NVTC board is Catherine Hudgins, TPB
member and on the WMATA Board of Directors.
Check out the NVTC website www.thinkoutsidethecar.org -- it seems definitely

related to what we are trying to do (while not RTV, the NVTC is all about bus &
rail transit).
As for inviting her for an interview --- would it be possible to hold off until we
can assess whether David would be good for/would want the position. (I have a lot
of confidence in David & if he accepted the positions, I'd be happy at stopping the
interviewing process there.)
As for inviting Kelly --- a while back, I had indicated that I didn't think she
would be pertinent to the interview process. However, after having worked with
Kelly the past two months on "Get Maryland Moving" (the coalition of 40 groups that
leaned on Annapolis and orchestrated a huge e-mail and petition campaign about the
transportation bill, which passed last week), I think it would be helpful to have
her sit in on the interviews.
In order to maximize the education and outreach endeavor to acquaint the most
people with the proposed RTV system, I think the ability of Kelly and whomever our
Exec Director to work with each other will be beneficial. This gives us a chance
to see how the two respond to each other & what kind of "synergy" they may spark in
each other. Of course Kelly won't be the one to decide, but I think we could learn
a lot from seeing how the two of them (Kelly & a potential ED -- in this case David
Moon) respond to each other.
Perhaps others can also weigh in so we can have the advantage of the most
perspectives....
-- Tina
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Wilhelm, Dan <dwilhelm@mitre.org> wrote:

Mark
I dont think the applicant is strong enough to consider. She appears to be more
contracting and contract admin, and too little with outreach.
I would vote against having Kelly involved with our selection process. I view it as
being an internal matter.
Dan

To: Tina Slater; Francine Waters; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; Street,
Thomas
Subject: FW: RESUME
All: Please take a look at the attached resume and let me know whether you think
we should schedule an interview. If so, does it make sense to invite her to see us
after we speak with David Moon next Wednesday? Let me know what you think.
Thanks. Mark
P.S. Also, does it make sense for me to invite Kelly Blynn to sit with us as we
conduct these interviews in light of the fact that she will be working closely
with whomever we select? LMW
________________________________
From: Alex Posorske [mailto:alex@smartergrowth.net]
To: L. Mark Winston
Subject: Fwd: RESUME
Hi Mark:
I received this resume last week after announced your opening to our network of
former interns. I don't know the woman personally but it looks like she has some
experience that might be worth considering, along with a local background. Let me
know if you have any questions.
Alex
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Mariela Garcia <garciacolberg@yahoo.com>
Subject: RESUME
To: "alex@smartergrowth.net" <alex@smartergrowth.net>
Dear Alex,
I would like to be considered for the executive director position that is

currently available at Communities for Transit. I believe that I have the
experience necessary to be a great asset to the organization. As you will note
from my resume, during the years, I have acquired a solid base of experiences and
exposure to different work environments. I am both a real estate lawyer and a
planner and I have worked in program planning and development, and in different
capacities in the non-for profit sector.
I was a real estate lawyer in Puerto Rico when I decided to challenge myself
and became director of SIFE Puerto Rico. Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE) is a
non for profit organization that organizes university students so that they work in
community projects that creates economic opportunity for others. My experience with
the students, and with the projects they developed in different poor communities,
inspired me to change my career plans and move to Maryland.
I started doctoral studies in Urban Planning at University of Maryland in

2008. While there, I focused on Housing and Community Studies and I took some
courses in Real Estate Development. In 2011, I started working at the Northern
Virginia Transportation Commission and I quickly loved working in transportation
and with all the opportunities that transportation offers a community. I am eager
to utilize all that I have learned and focus on a new endeavor. Communities for
Transit sounds like the right challenge.
You will find that I have all the skills that you are looking for in a
executive director. I work well both independently and with others. I am a creative
problem solver and I have an entrepreneurial spirit. I also have experience
working with fundraising, board of directors, and in both program management and
program development. In me you will find an assertive, self-assured, positive
individual who will thrive in the environment of a non for profit, and that can
make Communities for Transit a premier organization in Maryland.
I hope you will
forward my resume to the decision makers. I am looking forward to sharing my
experiences and vision with all of them.
Sincerely,
Mariela Garcia Colberg

garciacolberg@yahoo.com
-Alex Posorske | Managing Director

Coalition for Smarter Growth
316 F Street NE | Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 675-0016 ext. 126 <tel:%28202%29%20675-0016%20ext.%20126>
(202) 675-6992 <tel:%28202%29%20675-6992> - fax
alex@smartergrowth.net <mailto:alex@smartergrowth.net>
www.smartergrowth.net <http://www.smartergrowth.net/>

To:
Jonathan Sachs
Cc:
Casey Anderson; Street, Thomas; Kelly Blynn
Subject:
Draft Task Force Comments on Staff Draft Functional Plan
04-04-13
Ladies and Gentlemen: Thanks very much for the comments received from Dan Wilhelm,
Jonathan Genn, and Tina Slater. If Francine, Jonathan Sachs, Tom, Casey and Kelly
have any comments I would appreciate receiving them this morning. I then need to
reconcile the comments and prepare a draft that can be discussed with Messrs.
Holmes and Roshdieh before circulation to the Task Force. Thanks. Mark

To:
Street, Thomas; Jonathan Genn; Tina Slater; Dan Wilhelm
Cc:
Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm
Subject:
RE: RESUME
To All: Based on the various comments of the group, the CFT Executive Committee
will interview David Moon next Wednesday and, based on that, will decide whether to
interview Ms. Garcia-Colberg. Only the addressees of this email will be invited.
Thanks. Mark
________________________________
To: Jonathan Genn; Tina Slater; Dan Wilhelm
Cc: L. Mark Winston; Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm
Subject: RE: RESUME
Not that I have a say in the matter, but I agree w/ Jonathan.

To: Tina Slater; Dan Wilhelm
Cc: Mark Winston; Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas
Subject: RE: RESUME
Both Tina and Dan make excellent points.
My suggestion would be that we wait to make any decision on meeting with Ms. Garcia
Colberg until after we meet with David Moon.
While Tina raises good points about Kelly's participation in our interview process,
on balance, I think it best that we conduct interviews without Kelly. We all
admire Kelly. And from what I can tell from my dealings with Kelly, I'm confident
that Kelly will be able to work with whomever we choose. So I think we should keep
this an internal matter and make the decision on who we think will be best for our
organization.
Just my thoughts....
Jonathan

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Telephone:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Fax:
Cell:
301-622-3507
Email:
410-935-2599
________________________________
To: Wilhelm, Dan

Cc: L. Mark Winston; Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject: Re: RESUME
Mark --
I think the applicant sounds like she has very applicable experience. No Va

rail transit).
perspectives....
-- Tina

Mark
I dont think the applicant is strong enough to consider. She appears to be more
contracting and contract admin, and too little with outreach.
I would vote against having Kelly involved with our selection process. I view it as
being an internal matter.
Dan

To: Tina Slater; Francine Waters; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; Street,
Thomas
Subject: FW: RESUME
Thanks. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Hi Mark:
Alex
Subject: RESUME
Dear Alex,


I hope you will
Sincerely,


(202) 675-0016 ext. 126 <tel:%28202%29%20675-0016%20ext.%20126>
(202) 675-6992 <tel:%28202%29%20675-6992> - fax

To:
Mark Winston
Cc:
Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas;
Casey Anderson; Kelly Blynn; Jonathan Sachs
Subject:
Re: Transit Task Force - Draft Comments on Functional Plan
Mark -- I think your paper/statement looks really good.
comment to offer:
I have only one minor
on page 2 -- I'd omit footnote #3. You've said that while we don't necessarily
agree that ridership forecasting should be a criteria in determining the corridors,
we don't necessarily need to argue about it now. (But I think the footnote *does*
continue the argument that we said we didn't need to have at this time).
-- Tina
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:59 PM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com> wrote:
04-03-13
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Thanks to all of you for attending the meeting
yesterday. Congratulations to Tom on becoming a grandparent again. Attached

please find a draft of comments on the Functional Plan as discussed yesterday.
Please send me your thoughts, comments and/or edits. Even if you have no comments
please let me know that you have reviewed and blessed it.
My plan is: (1) after calling to alert them that it is on its

way, to send our final draft it to Director Holmes and Deputy Director Roshdieh for
their comments; and (2) then, after receiving Messrs. Holmes and Roshdiehs
comments, circulate the final draft to Task Force Members. With regard to asking
for comments from Messrs. Holmes and Roshdieh, I believe this is consistent with
agreements made previously to coordinate what we are doing with MCDOT and the
County Executives Rapid Transit Steering Committee so that they have an
opportunity to weigh in and are not caught off-guard by what we might be doing. I
am also hopeful that because of the approach we are taking that MCDOT will support
our position.
I have also thought further about the question whether we should

convene the Task Force to discuss this subject and believe that we should do so.
If anyone feels strongly that we should not do so, please let me know and I will
consider it further. Thanks again.
Mark

To:
Dan Wilhelm
Cc:
Mark Winston; Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: RESUME
Mark -I think the applicant sounds like she has very applicable experience. No Va
rail transit).
perspectives....
-- Tina

Mark
I dont think the applicant is strong enough to consider. She appears to be

more contracting and contract admin, and too little with outreach.
I would vote against having Kelly involved with our selection process. I view
it as being an internal matter.
Dan

To: Tina Slater; Francine Waters; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn;
Street, Thomas
Subject: FW: RESUME
All: Please take a look at the attached resume and let me know whether you
think we should schedule an interview. If so, does it make sense to invite her to
see us after we speak with David Moon next Wednesday? Let me know what you think.
Thanks. Mark
P.S. Also, does it make sense for me to invite Kelly Blynn to sit with us as
we conduct these interviews in light of the fact that she will be working closely
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Hi Mark:
I received this resume last week after announced your opening to our network
of former interns. I don't know the woman personally but it looks like she has some
Alex
Subject: RESUME
Dear Alex,

I was a real estate lawyer in Puerto Rico when I decided to challenge

myself and became director of SIFE Puerto Rico. Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE)
is a non for profit organization that organizes university students so that they
work in community projects that creates economic opportunity for others. My
experience with the students, and with the projects they developed in different
poor communities, inspired me to change my career plans and move to Maryland.
I started doctoral studies in Urban Planning at University of Maryland

in 2008. While there, I focused on Housing and Community Studies and I took some

I hope you will
Sincerely,


(202) 675-0016 ext. 126 <tel:%28202%29%20675-0016%20ext.%20126>
(202) 675-6992 <tel:%28202%29%20675-6992> - fax
From: Jonathan Genn [Jonathan@Percontee.com]

To:
Dan Wilhelm; Mark Winston; 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; Dan Wilhelm;
Street, Thomas; Casey Anderson; 'Kelly Blynn'; Jonathan Sachs
Subject:
RE: Transit Task Force - Draft Comments on Functional Plan
Attachments:
CfRT-JMG Suggestions to LMW Draft-Task Force Comments Draft 2 0402-13-040313.doc
Oh Boy!
I did not realize that while I was making my suggested edits, Dan forwarded his
suggestions. So my attached set of suggestions will just make more work for Mark
(and any of you who wish to read and comment on all of this)!
My primary concern about Marks initial draft was that RTS opponents could point to
some of this language as effectively a repudiation (or at least a significant
dilution) of our own report. Our report gave compelling reasons why we needed a
much more robust network (>140 miles) and much higher performance standards. I
dont think we need to make any admission that a smaller network or lower
performance standards are adequate. In fact, I think it is imperative that we
avoid any dilution of our Reports compelling reasoning, because we will likely
need to refer to it in the future. For this reason, I suggest we simply remain
silent on this issue (so long as the Functional Plan includes procedures for
regular reviews and amendments to improve or expand the network of corridors).
I also thought we wanted to avoid getting into the debate now about ridership
metrics. I felt that all the references to ridership sounded too defensive, and
really not necessary now. We could remain silent now (again provided that we
preserve our position to be able to make all our arguments about ridership metrics
at a later date).
Finally, I felt that we did not need to get into any specifics about operational
decisions, because we were going to recommend those decisions be left for the
transportation professionals at the agency or agencies that will have the
responsibility to plan, design, engineer, and implement the RTS network. I also
presumed McDOT would appreciate our stating that position.
With these views, my attached suggested version becomes shorter and a bit simpler.
Just my thoughts for whatever they may be worth.
Jonathan
PS --- Because there were too many edits in various places, the marked copy was too
hard to read. So I attached only a clean copy.

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Office Telephone:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Office Telecopier:
Mobile Telephone:
Email:
301-622-3507
410-935-2599

To: 'L. Mark Winston'; 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; 'Dan Wilhelm'; Jonathan
Genn; 'Street, Thomas'; Casey@KauffmanAnderson.com; 'Kelly Blynn'; 'Jonathan Sachs'
Subject: RE: Transit Task Force - Draft Comments on Functional Plan
Mark
Mark
Attached is your draft with my proposed changes. I am not changing upon points but
did add one about station numbers and locations. I think you were attempting to be
too exact, from a legal point of view, and as a result it makes it harder to follow
and understand the basic points. We only have a few points and they need to be
clean and succinct.
Dan

To: Tina Slater; Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm (dwilhelm@mitre.org); Dan Wilhelm;
Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas; Casey@KauffmanAnderson.com; Kelly Blynn; 'Jonathan
Sachs'
Subject: Transit Task Force - Draft Comments on Functional Plan
04-03-13
Ladies and Gentlemen: Thanks to all of you for attending the meeting yesterday.
Congratulations to Tom on becoming a grandparent again. Attached please find a
draft of comments on the Functional Plan as discussed yesterday. Please send me
your thoughts, comments and/or edits. Even if you have no comments please let me
know that you have reviewed and blessed it.
My plan is: (1) after calling to alert them that it is on its way, to
send our final draft it to Director Holmes and Deputy Director Roshdieh for their
comments; and (2) then, after receiving Messrs. Holmes and Roshdiehs comments,
circulate the final draft to Task Force Members. With regard to asking for
comments from Messrs. Holmes and Roshdieh, I believe this is consistent with
our position.

Mark

To:
Mark Winston; 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn;
Street, Thomas; Casey Anderson; 'Kelly Blynn'; Jonathan Sachs
Subject:
RE: Transit Task Force - Draft Comments on Functional Plan
Attachments:
Task Force Comments Draft 2 04-02-13.doc
Mark
Mark
Attached is your draft with my proposed changes. I am not changing upon points but
did add one about station numbers and locations. I think you were attempting to be
too exact, from a legal point of view, and as a result it makes it harder to follow
and understand the basic points. We only have a few points and they need to be
clean and succinct.
Dan

To: Tina Slater; Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm (dwilhelm@mitre.org); Dan Wilhelm;
Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas; Casey@KauffmanAnderson.com; Kelly Blynn; 'Jonathan
Sachs'
Subject: Transit Task Force - Draft Comments on Functional Plan
04-03-13
our position.

Mark

To:
Street, Thomas; Casey Anderson; Kelly Blynn; Jonathan Sachs
Subject:
Transit Task Force - Draft Comments on Functional Plan
Attachments:
Task Force Comments, Draft 2, 04-02-13.doc
04-03-13
our position.

Mark

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: RESUME
Attachments:
RESUME-March 2013.doc
Thanks. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Hi Mark:
Alex
Subject: RESUME
Dear Alex,


I hope you will
Sincerely,


(202) 675-0016 ext. 126
(202) 675-6992 - fax
<http://twitter.com/betterDCregion>
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
L. Mark Winston [mwinston@glazerwinston.com]

Wednesday, April 03, 2013 11:54 AM
Street, Thomas
'Keith Haller'
Tom:
Can you join Keith and me on a 2pm call?
Mark

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
CFT Executive Director Interview
All:
The Executive Committee of CFT will interview David Moon in my office
next Wednesday at 6:30pm. If there are other agenda items, I will let you know
before then. Thanks. Mark

To:
'David Moon'; Francine Waters
Cc:
Tina Slater; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: Communities for Transit, Inc. - Executive Director
Great!
We look forward to seeing you then.
________________________________
To: Francine Waters
Cc: L. Mark Winston; Tina Slater; Dan Wilhelm (dwilhelm@mitre.org); Dan Wilhelm;
This works for me:
Wednesday, April 10th at 6:30pm
Thanks!
David Moon
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Francine Waters <fwaters@lerner.com> wrote:
Good Morning!
Wednesday, April 10th
I have a conflict with the White Flint Implementation Committee Meeting on Monday
the 8th --
Thanks,
Francine
FRANCINE WATERS
SENIOR MANAGING DIRECTOR | TRANSPORTATION | SMART GROWTH
LERNER
Eighth Floor
301.692.2563
direct tel
FWaters@Lerner.com <mailto:fwaters@Lerner.com>
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.

To: 'David Moon'
Cc: 'Tina Slater'; Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm (dwilhelm@mitre.org); 'Dan
Wilhelm'; 'Jonathan Genn'; 'Street, Thomas'
Subject: RE: Communities for Transit, Inc. - Executive Director
04-03-13
David: Good morning. I propose that we schedule a meeting with the Executive
Committee of Communities for Transit, Inc. at one of the following times. Please
pick one.
Monday, April 8th at 6:30pm

We would meet in my office at the below address. If you are coming by

Metro, it is at the Friendship Heights Station. If you are driving, you can enter
via the Jenifer Street entrance and we can validate parking. We look forward to
seeing you.
Mark
________________________________
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 12:17 PM
To: L. Mark Winston
Hi there -- I have some availability next Monday and Wednesday before I need to
step out of town for a few days. Then I am back on Monday, April 8 and have
availability that week, too.
Thanks!
David Moon
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:09 PM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>

wrote:
03-28-13
David: Good afternoon. I would like to follow-up on our conversation of last week
regarding the above. The Executive Committee of CFT is interested in exploring
this further with you including an arrangement that might have you work part-time
with the possibility of increasing work as conditions permit. Let me know if we
can set up a time in the next few days to sit down and discuss it. I will try to
include as many Executive Committee members as are available. Thanks very much.
Mark
****ATTENTION****

To:
'David Moon'
Cc:
'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; Dan Wilhelm; 'Dan Wilhelm'; Jonathan Genn;
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: Communities for Transit, Inc. - Executive Director
04-03-13
David: Good morning. I propose that we schedule a meeting with the Executive
Committee of Communities for Transit, Inc. at one of the following times. Please
pick one.
Monday, April 8th at 6:30pm

We would meet in my office at the below address. If you are coming by

Metro, it is at the Friendship Heights Station. If you are driving, you can enter
via the Jenifer Street entrance and we can validate parking. We look forward to
seeing you.
Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Thanks!
David Moon

wrote:
03-28-13
Mark

To:
bryna.helfer@dot.gov
Cc:
brian.farber@dot.gov; Kevin.Chapman@dot.gov; Mark Winston; Street, Thomas;
Wes Guckert (WGuckert@trafficgroup.com)
Subject:
RE: Follow up: Briefing on Mont Co, MD's Rapid Transit Network
Good Afternoon, Bryna!
I am following up on our conversation about a week and a half ago.
Might it be possible to start circulating a few dates and times (perhaps for late
April or early May), when my colleagues and I could meet at your office relating to
Montgomery County, Marylands quite ambitious 100+ mile rapid transit network
initiative? If possible, I would at least like to get a date and time on
everyones calendar, even if it is weeks away.
Thank you, in advance, for your time and consideration.
Best wishes.
Jonathan

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Office Telephone:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Office Telecopier:
Mobile Telephone:
Email:
301-622-3507
410-935-2599
From: Jonathan Genn

To: 'bryna.helfer@dot.gov'
Cc: brian.farber@dot.gov; Kevin.Chapman@dot.gov
Subject: RE: Follow up: Briefing on Maryland's Rapid Transit Network
Dear Bryna:
Once again, many thanks for your very prompt reply today. I look forward to
hearing back from you to schedule a convenient date and time for me to meet at your
office to discuss our plans and initiatives.
Best Wishes.
Jonathan

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Office Telephone:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Office Telecopier:
Mobile Telephone:
Email:
301-622-3507
410-935-2599
From: bryna.helfer@dot.gov [mailto:bryna.helfer@dot.gov]

To: Jonathan Genn
Subject: Follow up: Briefing on Maryland's Rapid Transit Network
Jonathan
I wanted to follow up on our conversation about your request to provide a briefing
on the Maryland RTN. As I mentioned, we would like to invite you to come in at a
time that is convenient for our colleagues at the Federal Transit Administration.
Most likely, we will not be able to schedule anything until April, but will be back
in touch with you with a couple of different dates and times that might work.
Thanks for reaching outand we look forward to connecting soon!
Bryna Helfer, Ed.D.

Director of Public Engagement
Office of the Secretary
U.S. Department of Transportation
202-366-4146 (desk)
202--507-1450 (cell)

To:
Dan Wilhelm; Francine Waters; Jonathan Genn; Mark Winston; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Fwd: [chevychasewestmd] BRT draft letter
FYI --- One of our ACT members from Chevy Chase shared the
Chevy Chase West community listserv. Of course they don't
from cars -- that's pretty obvious. What's NOT obvious is
mind for the crush of additional cars coming down the road
following with us from

want a lane taken away
what plan they have in
between now & 2040!!
-- Tina
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: eakst <elpsaa@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 9:34 PM
Subject: [chevychasewestmd] BRT draft letter
To: chevychasewestmd@yahoogroups.com
Neighbors I just posted an update on the Bus Rapid Transit that is moving forward through the
MoCo planning board. Their next meeting is this coming Thursday, April 4th. We need
letters stating our opposition on record before this meeting. We have drafted a
sample letter for you to copy and sign, or you may write your own. Any adults in
your household may email a separate letter, so please make sure that people not on
the listserve are aware of this important effort.
Thank-you in advance,
Elaine Akst, CCW transportation committee co-chair
MCP-Chair@mncppc-mc.org <mailto:MCP-Chair%40mncppc-mc.org> , Ike Leggett
<ocemail@montgomerycountymd.gov <mailto:ocemail%40montgomerycountymd.gov> >,
councilmember.navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov <mailto:councilmember.navarro
%40montgomerycountymd.gov> , Councilmember.andrews@montgomerycountymd.gov
<mailto:Councilmember.andrews%40montgomerycountymd.gov> Gov
<Councilmember.andrews@montgomerycountymd.gov <mailto:Councilmember.andrews
%40montgomerycountymd.gov> >, Roger Berliner
<councilmember.Berliner@montgomerycountymd.gov <mailto:councilmember.Berliner
%40montgomerycountymd.gov> >, councilmember.elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov
<mailto:councilmember.elrich%40montgomerycountymd.gov>
<councilmember.Elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov <mailto:councilmember.Elrich
%40montgomerycountymd.gov> >, Valerie Ervin
<councilmember.Ervin@montgomerycountymd.gov <mailto:councilmember.Ervin
%40montgomerycountymd.gov> >, Councilmember.floreen@montgomerycountymd.gov
<mailto:Councilmember.floreen%40montgomerycountymd.gov> Gov
<Councilmember.floreen@montgomerycountymd.gov <mailto:Councilmember.floreen
%40montgomerycountymd.gov> >, Councilmember.leventhal@montgomerycountymd.gov
<mailto:Councilmember.leventhal%40montgomerycountymd.gov> Gov
<Councilmember.leventhal@montgomerycountymd.gov <mailto:Councilmember.leventhal
%40montgomerycountymd.gov> >, councilmember.rice@montgomerycountymd.gov
<mailto:councilmember.rice%40montgomerycountymd.gov> ,
councilmember.riemer@montgomerycountymd.gov <mailto:councilmember.riemer
%40montgomerycountymd.gov>
Dear Chair Carrier, President Navarro, County Executive Leggett, members of the
Planning Board and Councilmembers:
I am writing to protest in the strongest possible terms the proposed plan to
eliminate the curbside lanes on Wisconsin Avenue between Bethesda and Friendship
Heights, and subsequently the median strip, to create lanes for BRT. This proposed
route runs directly above the Red Line Metro, duplicating an existing mass transit
route.
All of the streets internal to my neighborhood, Chevy Chase West, are accessed by
Wisconsin Avenue. There is no other way to get in and out of CCW, or Norwood Park
on its northern edge. It is already dangerous and difficult to make turns into rush
hour congestion; the loss of a lane for cars will only make it worse.
It is astonishing that there is no apparent interest in a single pilot route in an
area lacking mass transit to see if the underlying assumptions are valid and if
there really is a ridership base. Replicating the Metro Red Line above ground makes
no sense when there is greater need on routes not served by Metro.
Finally, it is extremely distressing that planning for BRT is being contemplated
outside of the Master Plan processes, bypassing community involvement and raising
the specter of transit-oriented development being allowed without the normal public
hearing and work session processes for specific areas.
Please scale down the proposal for BRT so that consideration can proceed based on a
pilot project, in the context of local Master and Sector Plans, and with full
community involvement.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Name, address
__._,_.___
Reply via web post
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chevychasewestmd/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxaWI4cjBzBF9TAzk3M
zU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxMjA2MDE3BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTE3MTc1NARtc2dJZAM4NzQ3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xr
A3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM2NDc4MDA2NQ--?act=reply&messageNum=8747>
Reply to sender
<mailto:elpsaa@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20BRT%20draft%20letter>
Reply to group
<mailto:chevychasewestmd@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20BRT%20draft%20letter>
Start a New Topic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chevychasewestmd/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNnZrYXRvBF9TAzk3M
zU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxMjA2MDE3BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTE3MTc1NARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1l
AzEzNjQ3ODAwNjU->
Messages in this topic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chevychasewestmd/message/8747;_ylc=X3oDMTM1aXJwbTlyB
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxMjA2MDE3BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTE3MTc1NARtc2dJZAM4NzQ3BHNlYwNm
dHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM2NDc4MDA2NQR0cGNJZAM4NzQ3> (1)
Recent Activity:
*
New Members
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chevychasewestmd/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJnaWUwOW5nBF9TAz
k3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxMjA2MDE3BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTE3MTc1NARzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzd
GltZQMxMzY0NzgwMDY1?o=6> 1
Visit Your Group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chevychasewestmd;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNGZ2YWJwBF9TAzk3MzU5Nz
E0BGdycElkAzIxMjA2MDE3BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTE3MTc1NARzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzN
jQ3ODAwNjU->
Yahoo! Groups
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOXRpMDdxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxMjA2MDE3
BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTE3MTc1NARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTM2NDc4MDA2NQ-->
Switch to: Text-Only <mailto:chevychasewestmd-traditional@yahoogroups.com?
subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional> , Daily Digest
<mailto:chevychasewestmd-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>
Unsubscribe <mailto:chevychasewestmd-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
subject=Unsubscribe> Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Send us
Feedback <mailto:ygroupsnotifications@yahoogroups.com?
subject=Feedback+on+the+redesigned+individual+mail+v1>
.
__,_._,___

To:
Dan Wilhelm
Cc:
Mark Winston; Tina Slater; Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Dan Wilhelm;
Jonathan Sachs; Street, Thomas; Kelly Blynn
Subject:
Re: Meeting to Discuss Task Force Position on Staff Draft of Transit
Corridors Functional Plan
I too will be there.
Jonathan
Executive Vice President
and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Email: jonathan@percontee.com
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 1, 2013, at 9:22 AM, "Wilhelm, Dan" <dwilhelm@mitre.org> wrote:
Plan to be there.
Dan

To: 'Tina Slater'; Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Wilhelm, Dan; 'Dan
Wilhelm'; Jonathan Genn; Jonathan Sachs; 'Street, Thomas'
Cc: Kelly Blynn
Subject: Meeting to Discuss Task Force Position on Staff Draft of Transit
04-01-13
Ladies and Gentlemen: This is a reminder that we are scheduled to meet

tomorrow at 2:00 pm in my office to discuss the above. I also would appreciate it
if the members of the CFT Executive Committee could meet for a few minutes after
the main discussion to discuss an administrative matter.
To focus our discussion, I have prepared a very rough draft of a

proposed outline of comments on the Functional Plan. It is attached. I look
forward to seeing all of you. Thanks.
Mark
<image001.jpg>

To:
'Tina Slater'; Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Dan Wilhelm; 'Dan
Wilhelm'; Jonathan Genn; Jonathan Sachs; Street, Thomas
Cc:
Kelly Blynn
Subject:
Meeting to Discuss Task Force Position on Staff Draft of Transit
Attachments:
Outline of Comments on Staff Draft of the Transit Corridors
Functional Plan, 03-29-13.doc
04-01-13
Ladies and
2:00 pm in
members of
discussion
Gentlemen: This is a reminder that we are scheduled to meet tomorrow at

my office to discuss the above. I also would appreciate it if the
the CFT Executive Committee could meet for a few minutes after the main
to discuss an administrative matter.
To focus our discussion, I have prepared a very rough draft of a

proposed outline of comments on the Functional Plan. It is attached. I look
forward to seeing all of you. Thanks.
Mark

Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 11:55 AM
To:
Qi, Lily; Holly Sears; Street, Thomas; Sargent, Alec
Cc:
Sam Yedlin; Ayana Lambert
Subject:
RE: Meeting re: LifeSci Village --- [Las Vegas Style!]
Attachments:
LSV-Site II-TB-VG-Guideposts for Development Agreement021913.docx; LSV-Site II-Potential Business Structure-Mont Co and GLDC-draft031113[1].docx
CONFIDENTIAL ("Vegas Style")
Thank you, Lily, for your email.
First, Mea Culpa for referring to Alec as "Alex" (my bad!).
Second, and perhaps most important of all, I want to reiterate that my intentions
yesterday were purely to provide you with some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, not a
laundry list of unproductive complaints. I assure you that the Gudelsky family and
all of us at Percontee remain deeply loyal to and supportive of Montgomery County,
and want to continue to make meaningful contributions to your extraordinarily
ambitious, noble, and essential mission to make Montgomery County an even greater
place to live, work, play, invest, and thrive. Our primary purpose yesterday,
therefore, was not to whine or complain; but instead, to share with you
constructively our specific experiences in White Oak, as a "poster child" of some
of what we think are obsolete procedural and institutional obstacles that get in
the way of making Montgomery County most successful, and use the lessons learned as
a guide the help design and construct modern day, state-of-the-art institutional
processes to make the County most strategically positioned to compete and succeed
in the 21st Century. Please know that we have a number of specific and concrete
ideas of how to achieve those goals, and stand ready to be a productive partner in
your mission to reengineer the "New Montgomery." [Of course, we also stand ready
to be a most productive partner in making Site II and the Percontee property into
one combined, coordinated, and comprehensive ~300 acre LifeSci Village(tm) --adjoining the only FDA Headquarters in the World --- and create a unique and world
renowned "International Port of Entry into the U.S. Public Health Market"!]
Third, regarding this last point --- and continuing our "Vegas Style" confidential
conversations --- I have attach a copy of a set of "Guideposts" (which we
understand were prepared by Vickie Gaul and Tina Benjamin), which was sent to us on
February 19 in anticipation of a scheduled meeting for February 25. The purpose of
that February 25 meeting was explore the open issues related to advancing beyond
the previously executed Interim Development Agreement (IDA) and draw the roadmap to
a comprehensive General Development Agreement (GDA). Without belaboring the point,
I will simply say that those "Guideposts" expressly violate some of the written
terms of the executed IDA, and undermine most of the spirit of the executed IDA and
what we thought would be the basis of a future GDA. I don't want to belabor the
point, because we are hopeful that these challenges can be in "the rear view
mirror." At our February 25 meeting, we proposed a different approach --- more
akin to a proportionate joint venture that would leverage the County's Site II
investment in ~115 acres into an investment for all ~300 acres --- as I briefly
described to you in our meeting yesterday. For your information, I have thus also
attached in this email the written outline of our proposed business structure,
which we sent to Vickie, Tina, and Greg Ossont on March 7. We will ask our
attorney, Rich Zeidman, to contact your County attorney, Vickie Gaul, and ask when
we can meet to discuss our proposal. I am hopeful that our proposal can be the
foundation upon which we can move forward to fulfill our "joint legacy"!
Thank you so much for your listening to our story and offering constructive
suggestions. Not only do we look forward to working with your "strategic strike
force" on the specific White Oak matters; but also, I want all of you to know that
I would be happy to meet further with Holly to share some specific suggestions on
how MBDC can be a constructive force for change, and I would be happy to meet
further with Lily and Alec on some specific suggestions to make "New Montgomery" a
really substantive and powerful initiative.
Again, many, many thanks for all of your time, consideration, analyses, and
recommendations.
All my best wishes.
Jonathan

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Telephone: 301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Telephone: 410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Fax: 301-622-3507
Cell: 410-935-2599
________________________________________
From: Qi, Lily [Lily.Qi@montgomerycountymd.gov]
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 8:26 AM
To: Jonathan Genn; Holly Sears; Street, Thomas; Sargent, Alec
Cc: Sam Yedlin; Ayana Lambert
Subject: RE: Meeting re: LifeSci Village
Jonathan:
First, thank you very much for hosting us and for the very informative and
interesting half-day program. We got a lot out of that. You are right in this being
a legacy project and we will do our part to move the vision forward, and, in the
process, improve our game both as a government and as a community to make
Montgomery more competitive and attractive.
It seems the WOSG draft plan is being presented to the Planning Board next week so
it's very timely.
I have copied Alec Sargent, who has a County email address and works in our office
so you can reach him easily.
Lily Qi
________________________________
Sent: Fri 3/29/2013 4:35 PM
To: Qi, Lily; Holly Sears; Street, Thomas
Cc: Sam Yedlin; Ayana Lambert
Subject: RE: Meeting re: LifeSci Village
Dear Lily, Holly, and Tom:
Thank you and Alex for all of your time, analysis, and sage suggestions today
during our trip to "Las Vegas". (J) We look forward to working with all of you
further in bringing this vision into focus and making it a reality. I am confident
that this will be an extraordinary legacy project --- (and I do not believe I am
understating it by saying it will indeed be a "World Renowned" legacy project) --for all of us involved. I'm certain of it, especially based upon all my years in
strategic planning with the FDA and with other strategic prospects!
Enjoy your weekend. I do not have Alex's email, so please also send Alex our
thanks. Again, Ayana sends her regrets that she could not join us on account of a
virus that she did not want to spread to the rest of us. (Thanks for that, Ayana!)
We'll be in touch soon.
All my best.
Jonathan

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Office Telephone:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Office Telecopier:
Mobile Telephone:
301-622-3507
410-935-2599
To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: Breaking News Alert
Tom: Thanks. In addition to seeing what the ask is from MCDOT, I would also
appreciate it if you can get the memo Melanie prepares indicating how much
Montgomery County is estimated to receive. Thanks. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Subject: FW: Breaking News Alert
From: ABC7/NewsChannel 8 Breaking News [mailto:breakingnews@wjla.com]

To: Street, Thomas
Subject: Breaking News Alert
Marylands Senate has approved the states first gas tax in more than 20 years.
http://wj.la/XhlPgd
For more information... http://www.wjla.com/
========================
Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/wjlatv
To unsubscribe, click here <http://www.wjla.com/member/?e=0030A2EA-3A97-43D1-AB46DE47AB2111D1&id=1> .
To:
'Tina Slater'; Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm
(djwilhelm@verizon.net); Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Communities for Transit, Inc. - Executive Director
Ladies and Gentlemen: Please see my exchange with David Moon below. We already
have a meeting scheduled for next Tuesday at 2pm in my office relating to the
Functional Plan so it may be that setting something up with David for the week of
the 8th makes more sense. Please send me a note indicating which days and times
are not good for you. Any further thoughts? Thanks. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Thanks!
David Moon

wrote:
03-28-13
Mark

To:
BOE; Larry Cole; Rice's Office, Councilmember; Leventhal's Office,
Councilmember; Riemer's Office, Councilmember; Elrich's Office, Councilmember;
Floreen's Office, Councilmember; Navarro's Office, Councilmember; Andrews's Office,
Councilmember; Berliner's Office, Councilmember; Ervin's Office, Councilmember;
Flores, Bertha; Orlin, Glenn; Farber, Steve; Holmes, Arthur; Jones, Diane;
Gonzalez, Edgar; Kassiri, Fariba; Ike Leggett; Hughes, Jennifer; Citizen, MidCounty; Nurmi, Joy; Alperson, Phil; Silverman, Steve; Street, Thomas; Citizen,
Upcounty; Ann Marimow; Lynn and Bernie Kapolott ; Margie Hyslop; Spivack, Miranda
(Washington Post Reporter); Parcher, Amber; Amy Presley; Casey Anderson; Francoise
Carrier ; Leslie Saville; Callum Murray; Glenn Kreger ; John Carter ; Khalid
Afzal; Kristin O'Connor; Mary Bradford ; Nancy Sturgeon ; Rob Gibbs
Subject:
FW: MCCF April Newsletter
Attachments:
April 13 Newsletter.pdf
All
The April newsletter is attached.
Dan
To:
Mark Winston; 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas
Cc:
Casey Anderson; 'Wes Guckert'
Subject:
RE: Proposed Public Hearing Draft of the Countywide Transit Corridors
Functional Master Plan to be reviewed at 4/4/13 Planning Board meeting
I had not received it but check the Planning Board Agenda out each week so would
have been aware of it.
Thanks

To: 'Tina Slater'; Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Dan Wilhelm
(dwilhelm@mitre.org); Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Street, Thomas
Cc: Casey@KauffmanAnderson.com; 'Wes Guckert'
Subject: FW: Proposed Public Hearing Draft of the Countywide Transit Corridors
I assume that you all have received the below email separately but wanted to get
this to you to be sure.
I look forward to seeing you on the 2nd.
________________________________
From: Cole, Larry [mailto:larry.cole@montgomeryplanning.org]
To: Cole, Larry
Below is the link to the Proposed Public Hearing Draft of the Countywide Transit
Corridors Functional Master Plan, consisting of three parts: cover memo, plan, and
appendix: http://www.montgomeryplanningboard.org/agenda/2013/agenda20130404e.html.
The cover memo outlines the changes since the Staff Draft was published about 2-1/2
weeks ago.
The Planning Board will review this draft on Thursday morning, April 4, 2013 for
publication as the Public Hearing Draft. No public testimony will be taken at that
time. After the 30-day review period, the Public Hearing is anticipated to be held
on May 16, 2013.
Lawrence Cole, P.E.

Master Planner/Highway Coordinator
Functional Planning & Policy Division, Multi-Modal Networks Unit
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
8787 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring MD 20910
301-495-4528
301-495-1302 (fax)
larry.cole@montgomeryplanning.org <mailto:larry.cole@mncppc-mc.org>
http://www.MontgomeryPlanning.org

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
New Narrative Report for RF Attachments:
Narrative Report 3-28-30.docx
03-28-13
Tom: Please take a look at and give your comments on the attached that I now need
to submit to Ben de la Pena. Thanks. Mark

To:
'Tina Slater'; Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm
(djwilhelm@verizon.net); Street, Thomas
Cc:
Casey Anderson; 'Wes Guckert'
Subject:
FW: Proposed Public Hearing Draft of the Countywide Transit Corridors
I assume that you all have received the below email separately but wanted to get
this to you to be sure. I look forward to seeing you on the 2nd.
________________________________
To: Cole, Larry
Below is the link to the Proposed Public Hearing Draft of the Countywide Transit
Corridors Functional Master Plan, consisting of three parts: cover memo, plan, and
appendix: http://www.montgomeryplanningboard.org/agenda/2013/agenda20130404e.html.
The cover memo outlines the changes since the Staff Draft was published about 2-1/2
weeks ago.
The Planning Board will review this draft on Thursday morning, April 4, 2013 for
publication as the Public Hearing Draft. No public testimony will be taken at that
time. After the 30-day review period, the Public Hearing is anticipated to be held
on May 16, 2013.
Lawrence Cole, P.E.


301-495-4528
301-495-1302 (fax)

To:
'Wes Guckert'
Cc:
Jonathan Genn; Casey Anderson; Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE:
Wes: I apologize for delay I responding.
described in your scope of work. Thanks.
Please move a head with the work as

Mark
________________________________
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 7:15 AM
To: L. Mark Winston
Subject:
FYI -- I am still on H O L D on my scope , I have not received N T P

To:
Cc:
Subject:
September 30, 2012
Thank you.
Those items will be forthcoming shortly.
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
September 30, 2012
Thanks, Mark.
the extension.
Benjamin de la Pea

2012
03-27-13


To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: WMATA Board of Directors - Code of Ethics
I neglected to include you on email I sent back to Marc.
________________________________
From: L. Mark Winston
To: 'Hansen, Marc P.'
Subject: RE: WMATA Board of Directors - Code of Ethics
Marc: Again feel free to pass it on with minor or major editing. In fact,
feel free to adopt and adapt it as your own email. That may be more effective.
Entirely up to you. Thanks again. Mark
________________________________
From: Hansen, Marc P. [mailto:Marc.Hansen@montgomerycountymd.gov]
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Street, Thomas
Subject: RE: WMATA Board of Directors - Code of Ethics
Mark
I find your logic persuasive. Again, with your permission I would like to share
this with Carol (perhaps with some minor editing).
Marc P. Hansen
County Attorney
240-777-6740
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email may be confidential under the
attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or other applicable law. If
you have received this email in error, you may not copy, distribute, or use its
contents, and you are requested to delete the email from your system immediately
and notify the sender at 240-777-6700. Thank you.
-----Original Message----From: L. Mark Winston [mailto:mwinston@glazerwinston.com]
To: Hansen, Marc P.
Cc: Street, Thomas
Subject: WMATA Board of Directors - Code of Ethics
03-27-13
Marc: Good morning. As you can imagine, I have continued to reflect on the
direction in which the WMATA General Counsels Office appears to be going in its
interpretation of the WMATA Compact and Code of Ethics, and their potential impact
on my eligibility to serve.
I do not think I am falling victim to Platonic two-valued logic when I

suggest that either Section 10 (a) of the Compact is an absolute prohibition on any
person becoming a Director who is financially interested, either directly or
indirectly, in any contract, sale, purchase, lease or transfer of real property or
personal property to which the board or the Authority is a party or it is not
and the Board has the power under Section 12 (c) to adopt rules and regulations
respecting the exercise of the powers conferred in the Compact, and that in the
exercise of this power the Board has determined that the threshold for an ownership
interest or income level from such a contract right is less than 3%. If Section 10
creates an absolute, then it appears that I would be ineligible. If not, then I am
eligible. Furthermore, this seems to be a straightforward question and I would
have appreciated knowing that this was the view the Authority took when you
originally raised it with them. Much unpleasantness would have been avoided.
If the requirements of Section 10 (a) are absolute, then it would seem

that when the Code of Ethics defines a direct or indirect financial interest to be
less than a 3% interest the Code of Ethics is violating the Compact and is,
therefore, null and void at least with respect to the relevant provisions
(assuming they are severable). On the other hand, if the Authority has the power
to implement Section 10 (a) by adopting rules, then the important defined terms are
valid. If those provisions of the Code of Ethics are valid then they should be
applied with consistency.
The notion that by being a member of a single purpose entity that has a
minority interest in another single purpose entity which, when the level of
ownership interest is calculated such interest is less than the 3% threshold stated
in the Code of Ethics is nonetheless tantamount to being a direct party to a
contract with WMATA and, therefore, a disqualifying fact, simply does not make
sense. As the Compact and the Code of Ethics read, the prohibitions and
limitations apply to individuals who may have a direct or indirect interest they
do not apply to the entities involved. Nor can the rules be read as suggesting
that a member of a single purpose entity must be held to have an interest in excess
of the threshold, notwithstanding what his or her actual interest is. It cannot
matter whether the individual is a shareholder, limited partner, or a member of a
limited liability company. In fact, the applicable provisions of the Code of
Ethics apply to an individual and already deem whatever interest is being held by
the individual as fully attributable to him or her. In my case, there is no
question that my economic interest is less than 3%. What the Code deems essential
is the amount of economic interest the individual has in a party with a contract
right. Interestingly, the Code of Ethics does not even concern itself with issues
of control. For example, it is possible in todays commercial context, for an
individual to own a very small interest and have absolute control over an entity
from the standpoint of management and decision-making. While not necessarily
relevant in this matter, this is one of the reasons I represented at the very
beginning that I had no management authority in KS Greenbelt, LLC or Renard, LLC.
Since the Code does not address this issue it should not matter but I mentioned
it anyway.
Nor can I understand how Section 10 can be interpreted as being an

absolute prohibition for some owners of a beneficial interest in real property or
personal property for some purposes and not for others.
Of course I cannot know what the implication of reading Section 10 of

the Compact as an absolute prohibition might be on other candidates for appointment
or on current and future directors of the Authority. However, it is reasonable
to believe the impact could be significant. It could render ineligible other well
qualified, public spirited and ethical people.
Mark

To:
De La Pena, Benjamin
Cc:
Subject:
Montgomery County Executive Transit Task Force - Rockefeller Foundation
2012
Attachments:
Narrative Report, 09-30-12.pdf
03-27-13


Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 10:32 AM
To:
Jonathan Genn
Cc:
Mark Winston; Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm
Subject:
Re: CFT - Executive Director
Good point about being close to David Moon, if he would end up being our Exec Dir.
He lives in Tk Pk. --- Tina
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Jonathan Genn <Jonathan@percontee.com> wrote:
Tina:
I agree that there would likely be more interaction with McDOT than with P&P.
I don't know what other interactions there might influence that location of a CfRT
office space; but the Rockville area might be a more convenient venue overall.
On the other hand, if we have David Moon as a part-time ED, then the every
day location in the SS area might be the best location.
Perhaps we should see what would be most convenient for whoever we pick as
(part-time or full-time) ED and see where he/she might prefer. If the ED would
rather be in Rockville, then we might look to fun out what we might be able to
lease for a reasonable monthly rate.
up.
I'll see how long I can keep a hold on this space before having to give it
Jonathan
and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2013, at 9:09 PM, "Tina Slater" <slater.tina@gmail.com> wrote:
Jonathan -- don't know how much space we need, but 1500 sq ft sounds
like a nice sized office and being near SS Metro (or any Metro) would be a bonus.
Depending on how much interfacing we'd be doing with the Planning Board (as opposed
to MCDOT), the SS location could be advantageous. Not sure what our budget is, but
I'd say the location, size & price appear appealing. --- Tina
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Jonathan Genn <Jonathan@percontee.com>
I wish I had another thumb so I could give 3 thumbs up to hiring

David Moon as part-time Ex Dir. I'll just have to settle with 2 enthusiastic
thumbs up.
One question to our counselor, Mr. Winston. Through which entity
would it be most practical and strategic for David to work --- the charitable
501(c)(3) or the advocacy 501(c)(4)?
Finally, I am requesting the CfRT Ex Comm respond as soon as
possible about your interest in the space at Mont Office Center. I previously
circulated an email and term sheet. Please let me know if you need me to resend it.
As I said before, I am recusing myself from the CfRT Board's vote. But I would
like to be able to respond timely to the leasing manager without abusing my
privilege of holding the space for our consideration.
Thanks.
Jonathan
and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2013, at 3:17 PM, "Tina Slater"
<slater.tina@gmail.com> wrote:
My thinking is this -- having a part-timer of the caliber

of David Moon would surpass the full-time work of most people.
-- Tina
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:08 AM, L. Mark Winston
<mwinston@glazerwinston.com> wrote:
Confidential
Ladies and Gentlemen: This is to report that I had a

conversation on Friday with David Moon regarding the position of Executive Director
of CFT. It was a worthwhile conversation. He has a current commitment to an
organization that requires about half of his time and he has a strong loyalty to
that group. He is considering a situation in which he would start out as a part
time Executive Director with CFT and over time transitions to more time if that is
warranted. We need to consider whether that would be satisfactory with us. I made
no commitments. Indeed, I was somewhat surprised he was even open to considering
working with CFT. We will probably talk in the next couple of days. If he decides
he is willing to consider this seriously, then we can set a time to talk with him
as a group (perhaps on April 2nd after the meeting concerning the Functional Plan).
Thanks.
Mark
<image001.jpg>

Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 9:24 AM
To:
Subject:
Fwd: Repurposing Lanes for BRT
Attachments:
Ltr.Planning Board Chair.2013-3-21.BRT Repurposing Lanes.pdf
FYI, here is a letter I sent to the Planning BOard, on behalf of ACT, re the
concept of repurposing existing lanes for BRT. On Monday night when Larry Cole
presented the staff draft of the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master
Plan, Chair Carrier and two other commissioners seemed to be very concerned about
this concept. The draft, which is now being revised and will be reviewed again,
will eventually go out for for 30-day public comment.
--- Tina
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Tina Slater <slater.tina@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 9:16 AM
Subject: Repurposing Lanes for BRT
To: "Francoise M. Carrier" <MCP-Chair@mncppc-mc.org>
Dear Chair Carrier,

Attached please find a letter from Action Committee for Transit on our views about
repurposing existing lanes for BRT.
Thank you,
Tina Slater, President
Action Committee for Transit
www.actfortransit.org <http://www.actfortransit.org/>
slater.tina@gmail.com <mailto:slater.tina@gmail.com>
301-585-5038
To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RF Report
03-22-13
Tom: Good morning. I would appreciate it if you would make any comments or
suggestions you may have to the draft I wrote as the narrative report to RF
relating to the grant they have made for the benefit of the Task Force. Obviously,
it is long overdue and I would like to get it in today or Monday at the latest.
Thanks. Mark

To:
Subject:
RE: Follow up: Briefing on Montgomery County's Rapid Transit Network
Jonathan: I do recall discussing this with you a while back and congratulate you
on presenting information on the system to Secretary LaHood. It was pretty quick
turnaround from his staff so you must have made quite an impression.
I think it is a great idea to get together with whomever they designate

and also agree that the three of us should go.
In thinking through the nature of our presentation, I recommend that we

focus on the idea that, while excellent as far as they go, existing programs simply
have not unleashed the extraordinary potential of high quality, high performance
BRT in the United States as a cost effective transit solution. The Montgomery
County concept for building a network could serve as a model, a demonstration of
the positive impact that such a system can have on relief of traffic congestion,
environmental quality, balanced and smart economic and job growth, and general
improvement of the quality of life in more densely populated parts of our country.
We should think about a specific ask of many millions of dollars to support the
Montgomery Network even if the Planning Board and Council only authorizes a
portion of the Task Force network.
Go big or go home.
Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston; 'Street, Thomas'
Subject: FW: Follow up: Briefing on Montgomery County's Rapid Transit Network
Gentlemen:
Some Cool News!
I think I mentioned to both of you before that I serve on the Board of the
Washington Airports Task Force, which acts in an advisory capacity to MWAA. (Tom,
FYI, I specifically serve as the Chair of the WATFs Nominating Committee, and
recently nominated Scott Carmer, who wanted to serve on the WATF Board, and Scott
was just elected to join the Board.)
Anyway, at WATFs Annual Meeting last month, Secretary LaHood attended.
I spoke to
him briefly about our RTS network, that Rockefeller Foundation selected us to give
us substantial grant for our initiative, and handed to him a copy of the PowerPoint
presentation I made to the County Council last July. Secretary LaHood said he was
intrigued, that hed take back my material, and would have an appropriate person at
US DOT contact me.
Well, about an hour ago I received a call from Bryna Helfer (Secretary LaHoods
Director of Public Engagement), and practically simultaneously an email from Kevin
Chapman, the Senior Advisor to Secretary LaHood! Bryna said she would schedule a
meeting (probably sometime in April) at DOT, and would include a senior executive
from FTA in the meeting.
From her follow-up email (see below), Bryna copied Brian Farber, who is FTAs
Associate Administrator for Communications and Congressional Affairs. As soon as I
get a follow-up email from Bryna, I will let you know what dates and times they are
proposing to meet. I think it would be best if the 3 of us could attend, unless
you guys think differently. Please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks.
Jonathan

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Office Telephone:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Office Telecopier:
Mobile Telephone:
Email:
301-622-3507
410-935-2599

To: Jonathan Genn
Subject: Follow up: Briefing on Montgomery County's Rapid Transit Network
Jonathan
Bryna Helfer, Ed.D.

202-366-4146 (desk)
202--507-1450 (cell)

To:
Mark Winston; Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Follow up: Briefing on Montgomery County's Rapid Transit Network
Attachments:
TTF-Presentation to the County Council-revised-020113.pptx
Gentlemen:
Some Cool News!
I think I mentioned to both of you before that I serve on the Board of the
Washington Airports Task Force, which acts in an advisory capacity to MWAA. (Tom,
FYI, I specifically serve as the Chair of the WATFs Nominating Committee, and
recently nominated Scott Carmer, who wanted to serve on the WATF Board, and Scott
was just elected to join the Board.)
Anyway, at WATFs Annual Meeting last month, Secretary LaHood attended. I spoke to
him briefly about our RTS network, that Rockefeller Foundation selected us to give
us substantial grant for our initiative, and handed to him a copy of the PowerPoint
presentation I made to the County Council last July. Secretary LaHood said he was
intrigued, that hed take back my material, and would have an appropriate person at
US DOT contact me.
Well, about an hour ago I received a call from Bryna Helfer (Secretary LaHoods
Director of Public Engagement), and practically simultaneously an email from Kevin
Chapman, the Senior Advisor to Secretary LaHood! Bryna said she would schedule a
meeting (probably sometime in April) at DOT, and would include a senior executive
from FTA in the meeting.
From her follow-up email (see below), Bryna copied Brian Farber, who is FTAs
Associate Administrator for Communications and Congressional Affairs. As soon as I
get a follow-up email from Bryna, I will let you know what dates and times they are
proposing to meet. I think it would be best if the 3 of us could attend, unless
you guys think differently. Please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks.
Jonathan

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Office Telephone:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Office Telecopier:
301-622-3507
Mobile Telephone:
Email:
410-935-2599

To: Jonathan Genn
Subject: Follow up: Briefing on Montgomery County's Rapid Transit Network
Jonathan
Bryna Helfer, Ed.D.

202-366-4146 (desk)
202--507-1450 (cell)

To:
Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com); Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com);
Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Casey Anderson; Jonathan Genn;
Street, Thomas; 'Wes Guckert'; Jonathan Sachs
Cc:
Kelly Blynn; 'Stewart Schwartz'; Alex Posorske
Subject:
Transit Task Force - Discussion of Staff Draft of Transit Corridors
Functional Plan
Ladies and Gentlemen: This is notice of a meeting of the above group for April 2,
2013 at 2:00pm in my office to discuss the above referenced document. At Stewart
Schwartz request, and in order to keep the Coalition for Smarter Growth fully
informed of consideration of the Staff Draft of the Functional Plan, I have invited
Kelly Blynn to attend this meeting.
I have been working with a small group to prepare for our meeting on
April 2nd. At that time we will brief you on fundamental questions that we believe
need to be addressed and present a proposal that we believe should be presented to
the full Task Force at a meeting so that the Task Force may weigh in on the Staff
Draft. By weighing in, I mean offer comments and some specific suggestions on how
it might be modified to address the problems we see. We have also engaged The
Traffic Group to focus on particular problem areas within certain corridors
encompassed within the Staff Draft to assist us in providing specific suggestions
about how to solve those problems. Obvious, to the extent that any of you have
reviewed the Staff Draft and wish to pass along comments that would be very helpful
as we prepare to brief the group.
I expect the meeting on April 2nd to be an important one during which

our collective knowledge and judgment should enable us to prepare constructive
comments and concrete suggestions for the Planning Board. At that time we will
pick a meeting date for the Task Force in time to be able to prepare a formal
position paper and testimony for presentation to the Planning Board. (I believe
the original date set for the public hearing has been pushed back due to revisions
being made to the text of the Staff Draft.)
Additionally, we will be coordinating our views on this subject with

Director Holmes and Deputy Director Roshdieh of MCDOT. I expect that this will
have positive results.
I will circulate materials to you as soon as possible. Please take the

time to read the Staff Draft Functional Plan if you have not already done so. I
look forward to seeing all of you on April 2nd. Thanks very much.
Mark

To:
Casey Anderson; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas; 'Wes Guckert'
Subject:
MPOHT
Attachments:
Proposal Relating to Staff Draft MPOHT-LMW -. 03-21-13.doc
03-21-13
Gentlemen: Attached is a draft of the Proposal I circulated earlier in the week

regarding a Task Force position on changes that should be made to the Staff Draft.
It amalgamates comments and revisions made by Jonathan and me. I would appreciate
you comments and/or blessing of this document. That will help us finalize a scope
with Wes and will serve as the basis for what we present to the larger group that
will hopefully be able to meet on April 2nd.
My goal for that meeting will be for us to brief the group (which will
add Mr. Wilhelm, Ms. Slater, Ms. Waters and Kelly Blynn from CSG) on the issues the
smaller group has identified in the Staff Draft and presenting the approved
Proposal as our approach to addressing our perceptions of the problems with the
Staff Draft.
When the larger group finalizes its position, we will then schedule a
meeting of the full Task Force to discuss this issue. Please get back to me as
soon as possible. Thanks.
Mark

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Report to RF
Attachments:
Narrative Reprot, 09-30-12.doc
Tom: Please find my draft attached for your review and comment.
this off to them by end of day tomorrow. Thanks. Mark

To:
Mark Winston; Casey Anderson; Street, Thomas
Cc:
'Wes Guckert'
Subject:
RE: County Master Plan for Transit
Id like to get
I think the proposal is very fair, given our available limit of $5K. We cannot
solve all the biggest challenges for (relative to the challenges) next to nothing.
Such a representative sampling method is a fair cost-effective approach that does
not abuse Wess professional courtesies.
Just my thought.
Jonathan

To: Casey@KauffmanAnderson.com; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Cc: 'Wes Guckert'
Subject: FW: County Master Plan for Transit
Please review the attached scope of work draft from Wes as soon as possible and
give me your reaction/comments. It would be good to finalize such a scope in the
next couple of days as well as agreeing on the contents of the position paper
proposal I have circulated. Jonathan circulated a set of revisions this morning
that turned it into testimony. At this point, I would prefer to leave it as a
position paper to be ultimately circulated to the Task Force before a meeting and
then put into testimony consistent with what the Task Force approves. Please give
me your views.
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston; Jonathan Genn (jonathan@percontee.com);
Casey@KauffmanAnderson.com; Street, Thomas
Cc: Wes Guckert
Subject: County Master Plan for Transit
cid:image001.png@01CE0543.14AB2030
Wes Guckert
President
Baltimore, MD 21236
T 410.931.6600
F 410.931.6601
Merging Innovation and Excellence

To:
Mark Winston; Casey Anderson; Street, Thomas; 'Wes Guckert'
Subject:
RE: Proposal - Response to Jonathan's suggested changes
Excellent thought, Mark! Yes, I would suggest writing up a preliminary discussion
draft of the TTFs comments, then schedule a sit-down meeting (or telephone
conference) with Art and Al to discuss the position and see how we can best be on
the same message.
Jonathan

To: Jonathan Genn; Casey@KauffmanAnderson.com; Street, Thomas; 'Wes Guckert'
Subject: RE: Proposal - Response to Jonathan's suggested changes
Importance: High
Does the group believe that we should review the positions contained in the
attached paper with MCDOT to enlist its support for our view? It is possible that
we will find support for our view especially because it makes a special point of
pointing out the distinction between the work of the MPOHT and implementation
planning. What do you think?
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston; Casey@KauffmanAnderson.com; Street, Thomas; 'Wes Guckert'
My suggested edits to Marks revised Proposal are attached. Not knowing precisely
how this document would be used, you may wish to modify the style or form.
Thanks.
Jonathan

To: Casey@KauffmanAnderson.com; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas; 'Wes Guckert'
Subject: Proposal - Response to Jonathan's suggested changes
Attached please find my response and further suggested changes to the set of
revisions proposed by Jonathan. I cannot support a proposal that contemplates from
the beginning compromising the exclusivity of use of dedicated space. While I
acknowledge that if actual performance after a reasonable time may be necessary, I
dont like the idea, believe such a change should bear a heavy burden and we should
not develop a set of criteria which almost encourages it. I find it strange that
this core group that is so committed to the need for a high quality system that it
is willing to re-purpose lanes or reserve more right of way but it is willing to
compromise operational quality by making it easy for other vehicles to use the
space notwithstanding that we characterize them as high occupancy vehicles.

To:
Casey Anderson; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Cc:
'Wes Guckert'
Subject:
FW: County Master Plan for Transit
Attachments:
Winston.pdf
Please review the attached scope of work draft from Wes as soon as possible and
give me your reaction/comments. It would be good to finalize such a scope in the
next couple of days as well as agreeing on the contents of the position paper
proposal I have circulated. Jonathan circulated a set of revisions this morning
that turned it into testimony. At this point, I would prefer to leave it as a
position paper to be ultimately circulated to the Task Force before a meeting and
then put into testimony consistent with what the Task Force approves. Please give
me your views.
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston; Jonathan Genn (jonathan@percontee.com);
Casey@KauffmanAnderson.com; Street, Thomas
Cc: Wes Guckert
Subject: County Master Plan for Transit
cid:image001.png@01CE0543.14AB2030
Wes Guckert
President
Baltimore, MD 21236
T 410.931.6600
F 410.931.6601

To:
Jonathan Genn; Casey Anderson; Street, Thomas; 'Wes Guckert'
Subject:
Importance: High
Does the group believe that we should review the positions contained in the
attached paper with MCDOT to enlist its support for our view? It is possible that
we will find support for our view especially because it makes a special point of
pointing out the distinction between the work of the MPOHT and implementation
planning. What do you think?
________________________________
Thanks.
Jonathan


To:
Subject:
Attachments:
JMG Suggestions to LMW Revised Proposal Regarding Staff Draft
MPOHT-032113-9am.doc
Thanks.
Jonathan


To:
Subject:
RE: Transit - MPOHT
Mark:
My schedule is good for April 2. What time do you wish to begin? I would
recommend we plan for 2-3 hours to be sure we have adequate time to dig deep and
thoroughly analyze all the pending matters and strategies that need to be moving
simultaneously.
Thanks.
Jonathan

Subject: RE: Transit - MPOHT
I propose that we schedule a meeting of the CFT Executive Committee, along with
Messrs. Street and Anderson, for April 2nd in my office for the purpose of having a
discussion of the ideas we are now developing including if it is ready
vetting of a draft position paper.
By the way, one thing I forgot to mention in the long email I just sent in response
to Jonathans revival email is that during our meeting yesterday I also thought
about the capacity calculations we laid out in the TTF Report and how that could
relate to the Staff Drafts discussion of the threshold numbers for when it made
sense to build a corridor. I am still thinking that through.
Jonathan: I want to be careful about how much we throw at the Planning Board.
This is a time for mind expansion but only so much!
Thanks.
Mark
________________________________
Speaking of reviving old radical notions from last year (that might now have some
value in our current messaging efforts), I have attached an updated chart of the
comparison of people-moving throughput of RTVs versus autos (without the
limitations that Edgar Gonzalez demanded last year at the TTF meeting). You will
see that I was even charitable enough to show auto capacity at todays average 1.15
persons/auto PLUS I ADDED ANOTHER LINE GRAPH SHOWING ~20% INCREASE IN AVERAGE
PERSON/AUTO ratio to 1.30. Its still not even a close call. [This graphic should
show how our primary message/theme --- that we are Maximizing Mobility and
Reducing Gridlock Most Cost-Effectively and Most Responsibly. And for those who
just say no to whatever we present, we should ask the simple question, what
better, more cost-effective people-moving alternative do you have that can address
the projected gridlock of 2030 and beyond (see chart noted below)? And this also
feeds into our secondary message/theme --- There are No Better Alternatives.]
I also attached the chart comparison of out of area pass-through as projected by

Steve Fuller/CRA from 2010 to 2030. [This shows that for those who are riskadverse people, the far more dangerous and greater risk is the risk of inaction
(where we would cede control over our destiny and become the victims of our own
inaction), versus being proactive and taking control over our own destiny (in the
most cost-effective and responsible way reasonably foreseeable).]
And for Casey to digest (hopefully without too much indigestion!), I am reviving my
radical land use guidelines for TODs within Montgomery County (to minimize the
instances of squandering real TOD opportunities around rapid transit stations in
the County). I circulated this very rough first draft of the concept last year in
an effort to stimulate a dialogue on a real PLANNING tool for our Planning

Department! Id love to explain, discuss, argue, and (if Casey demands it) FIGHT
Casey on these ideas as well!
Thanks for indulging my revivals and my little (or not so little) annoying
diatribes!
Jonathan
From: Jonathan Genn

To: 'L. Mark Winston'; Casey@KauffmanAnderson.com; Street, Thomas; 'Wes Guckert'
Gentlemen:
I have attached my suggestions to Marks draft proposal (one clean copy and one
marked copy to show changes). I also have attached separately an outline of one of
my other radical ideas I proposed last February (2012) for the TTF, suggesting a
graduated system of dedicated lane use. (The only change I made was changing
RTV to RTS in the document.)
I am reviving this concept, because I would recommend this is the only place and
method to apply ridership projections --- namely, only to determine the extent to
which (and during what hours) the lanes would be used exclusively for RTVs in the
RTS network corridors, and when it might be used for other very high occupancy
vehicles (such as authorized licensed shuttle buses, Ride On, MetroBus, MTA
buses, private commuter coaches, etc.).
I will be happy to explain, discuss, argue, vet this concept in more detail with
the 3 of you. Now that we achieved the breakthrough with Mark yesterday, I feel
emboldened to revive these radical ideas, and try to demonstrate how they can play
into our overall strategies to reach our goal of High Performance Treatment
Standards.
Jonathan

Subject: Transit - MPOHT
03-20-13
Gentlemen:
We discussed trying to come up with a compromise approach that would

protect the qualitative integrity of each developed transit corridor. I have
attached a first draft of this concept. Please do not circulate this beyond this
group.
One point we should consider is whether this is something properly

proposed by the Task Force, the RTS Steering Committee, or the County Executive in
testimony he may give regarding the proposed Functional Plan.
Your thoughts are welcome.
Thanks.
Mark

To:
Subject:
OK, maybe we didnt get as big a breakthrough from Mark as I thought we had!!
Mark, if you really look at what I proposed in the graduated staging structure,
the WORST condition (Stage 1) is still far superior to much of what we proposed
in the TTF (that had, if I recall, as much as 30% in mixed GENERAL traffic). Under
my suggested scenario 0% would be in mixed GENERAL traffic. Im proposing the RTVs
would share the lanes only with VERY HIGH OCCUPANCY vehicles. But,
correspondingly, we minimize what otherwise would be justification for
transportation wars by adversaries, if they saw completely empty lanes for 4
minutes and 50 seconds out of every 5 minutes. And in some corridors, it could be
9 minutes and 50 seconds out of every 10 minutes. That might result in blood in
the streets. Im just as passionate as you are about a high performance rapid
transit system. But the more cost-effective use of those lane for more peoplemoving efficiency would be to allow other high occupancy people-moving vehicles to
use the lanes during the other 4 minutes and 50 seconds out of every 5 minutes.
And if we restrict the authorized licensing of other users (and I really mean have
those vehicles pay a licensing fee for access), then we could raise some money and
keep the speeds up just as the tolling of the ICC is meant to keep everything free
flowing.
Just my opinion.
Jonathan


To:
Subject:
RE: Transit - MPOHT
Agreed. And we should be able to enlist David Hauck and other citizens to press
the opening the floodgates argument that if we let even a few SOVs in the lanes
(at least during the restricted times and places --- see my graduated staging
suggestions), then there is little if any hope to counter the absolutely certain
pressure to open the floodgates for more and more autos, until it just becomes
another clogged artery.

Jonathan: I agree with your third paragraph below. We should look carefully at
that data and graphics to see whether they can support our arguments. In my
judgment, we should focus on how general mixed traffic in even a small portion of a
corridor compromises performance disproportionately and use some of our metrics
to point out the functionality (read that to mean people moving capacity) that is
being lost by this. mark
________________________________
Mark:
I will look at your outline tonight and try to reply before 9am tomorrow.
I agree that the revival of my suggested land use FAR concepts might blow out some
brains at the Planning Board, if raised now. I just thought that while I was going
through my old radical idea file from last year, I would throw out the FAR land use
ideas for Casey to begin to think about (because Caseys brain wont explode over
this, and he can spot quickly where I might be going astray)! So, yes, that
particular revival issue is more of a back-burner matter.
I do think, however, that the chart showing CRAs projected tripling of pass
through trips and an updated, more accurate graph of the people-moving comparisons
of RTVs versus autos (without Edgars restrictions) might be of help for the
Planning Board to visualize what we and Larry Cole are trying to convey.
Again, I agree not to throw too much at the Planning Board now.
respond to your outline by tomorrow AM.
Ill do my best to
Thanks.
Jonathan

Thanks.
Mark
________________________________

diatribes!
Jonathan
From: Jonathan Genn

Gentlemen:
Standards.
Jonathan

03-20-13
Gentlemen:

group.
Thanks.
Mark

To:
Subject:
RE: Transit - MPOHT
Jonathan: I agree with your third paragraph below. We should look carefully at
that data and graphics to see whether they can support our arguments. In my
judgment, we should focus on how general mixed traffic in even a small portion of a
corridor compromises performance disproportionately and use some of our metrics
to point out the functionality (read that to mean people moving capacity) that is
being lost by this. mark
________________________________
Mark:
Ill do my best to
Thanks.
Jonathan

Thanks.
Mark
________________________________


diatribes!
Jonathan
From: Jonathan Genn

Gentlemen:
Standards.
Jonathan

03-20-13
Gentlemen:

group.

Thanks.
Mark

To:
Subject:
Proposal - Response to Jonathan's suggested changes
Attachments:
JMG Suggestions to LMW Proposal on Staff Draft MPOHT-LMW Revised
B. 03-20-13.doc

To:
Subject:
RE: Transit - MPOHT
Mark:
Ill do my best to
Thanks.
Jonathan

Thanks.
Mark
________________________________

diatribes!
Jonathan
From: Jonathan Genn

Gentlemen:
Standards.
Jonathan

03-20-13
Gentlemen:

group.

Thanks.
Mark

To:
Subject:
RE: Transit - MPOHT
Thanks.
Mark
________________________________

diatribes!
Jonathan
From: Jonathan Genn

Gentlemen:
Standards.
Jonathan

03-20-13
Gentlemen:

group.

Thanks.
Mark

To:
Subject:
RE: Transit - MPOHT
In preparing a proposed position paper for consideration, I am going to focus on
fleshing out the following outline:
1.
The Planning Staff is to be commended for its very real effort
to stimulate thinking about how to integrate an RTS network into our existing road
network.
2.
While we understand the reasons for applying ridership
modeling techniques to the task, we believe that in evaluating the merits of
creating a new people moving capacity asset such as the proposed RTS system,
ridership metrics present real dangers. Generally, ridership modeling emphasizes
the historic record of transit use in trying to predict the future. There is ample
evidence that a high performance network will over achieve. More specifically,
ridership projections were borne out of the need for Federal grant authorities to
compare the relative merits of a number of competing applicants for Federal funds
in the area of heavy and light rail projects. Those projects result in either the
construction of a rail corridor or not building it. In applying traditional
ridership modeling to BRT type technology, BRT is being punished for its
apparent flexibility. The fact is that if corridor treatments are overly
compromised, as is the case in the Staff Draft, the constructed corridors will not
reach high performance levels and we will not have valid proof of performance and
the ability of the network to attract choice riders and change behavior.
Furthermore, ridership modeling in our case fails to take into account that we do
not in fact know when traffic congestion will reach a serious failure point (either
in specific corridors or generally throughout the County). If we have not built
out the requisite people moving capacity by the time we reach that fail safe point,
it could be too late or at least the long lead time for construction will result
in serious problems in the interim.
3.
The Task Force believes that whatever corridors decisionmakers decide to build out should be built out with 100% dedicated treatments
achieving full people moving capacity for those corridors. It would be better to
build a more limited network at a high quality for proof of concept than to build a
more expansive network with compromised treatments.
4.
The Task Force has examined particular locations within the
Staff Drafts proposed network which result in compromised treatments, such as
general mixed traffic configurations. With respect to those points, we have
prepared proposals that we submit for the Planning Boards review and judgment as
alternatives that will allow for high performance corridors, especially in Route
29, Route 355, Randolph Road, Viers Mill Road and a portion of Georgia Avenue.
Combined with the first 9.1 mile stage of the CCT, these corridors at the high
level treatment, will create a network that will attract riders, reduce congestion
in the short term and long term, and unleash economic developments and job creation
opportunities that will otherwise be constrained or precluded. Our specific
proposals will be submitted in writing.
I welcome other thoughts about this rough outline.
Mark
________________________________

diatribes!
Jonathan
From: Jonathan Genn

Gentlemen:
Standards.
Jonathan

03-20-13
Gentlemen:

group.

Thanks.
Mark

To:
Subject:
RE: Transit - MPOHT
Attachments:
CfRT-JMG Suggestions to LMW Proposal on Staff Draft MPOHT032013a.doc
Revised suggestions on Proposal, making the mileage correction Mark spotted
(thanks!) for the CCT.

My instinct is that is the way to handle the CCT.
________________________________
You are correct, sir.

Should we reflect all 15.1 miles of CCT in the calculation
of miles for Phase I of MPOHT? Or should we reflect 9.1 miles of CCT in Phase I of
MPOHT and 6.0 of CCT in Phase II (but also explaining that Phase II of CCT may
precede Phase II of full RTS network)? What say ye?
Jonathan

Jonathan:
I believe the length of the CCT is 15.1 miles.
Mark
________________________________
Gentlemen:
Standards.
Jonathan

03-20-13
Gentlemen:

group.

Thanks.
Mark

To:
Subject:
RE: Transit - MPOHT
Attachments:
TTF-RTV vesus Auto Throughput Capacity - 032013a.xlsx; CfRT-Chart
of 2030 Pass Thru Traffic from CRA Analysis-030212.docx; TTF - FAR Min and Max First Draft - 030312.xlsx

diatribes!
Jonathan
From: Jonathan Genn

Gentlemen:
Standards.
Jonathan

03-20-13
Gentlemen:

group.

Thanks.
Mark

To:
Subject:
RE: Transit - MPOHT
My instinct is that is the way to handle the CCT.
________________________________

Jonathan

Jonathan:
Mark
________________________________
Gentlemen:
Standards.
Jonathan

03-20-13
Gentlemen:

group.

Thanks.
Mark

To:
Subject:
RE: Transit - MPOHT
Jonathan

Jonathan:
Mark
________________________________
Gentlemen:
Standards.
Jonathan

03-20-13
Gentlemen:

group.

Thanks.
Mark

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Transit - MPOHT
Attachments:
CfRT-JMG Suggestions to LMW Proposal on Staff Draft MPOHT032013.doc; CfRT-MARKED-JMG Suggestions to LMW Proposal for Staff Draft MPOHT 032013.docx; TTF-Potential Graduating Staging of Dedicated Lanes - 022112- chaged
to RTS.docx
03-20-13
Tom: An important question: is this something that the County Executive should be
presenting, to some extent and in some manner? Mark
________________________________
Gentlemen:
Standards.
Jonathan

03-20-13
Gentlemen:

group.

Thanks.
Mark

To:
Subject:
RE: Transit - MPOHT
Jonathan:
Mark
________________________________
Gentlemen:
Standards.
Jonathan

03-20-13
Gentlemen:

group.

Thanks.
Mark

To:
Subject:
RE: Transit - MPOHT
Attachments:
CfRT-JMG Suggestions to LMW Proposal on Staff Draft MPOHT032013.doc; CfRT-MARKED-JMG Suggestions to LMW Proposal for Staff Draft MPOHT 032013.docx; TTF-Potential Graduating Staging of Dedicated Lanes - 022112- chaged
to RTS.docx
Gentlemen:
Standards.
Jonathan

03-20-13
Gentlemen:

group.

Thanks.
Mark

To:
Jonathan Genn; Casey Anderson; Street, Thomas
Cc:
'Wes Guckert'
Subject:
RE: Scope of Work by Wes Guckert
I just got off with Wes. He is going to circulate an email to the above people
laying out his approach to the work. I want the benefit of this groups views
before we decide on the scope of work. Thx.
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston; Casey@KauffmanAnderson.com; Street, Thomas
Cc: 'Wes Guckert'
Subject: RE: Scope of Work by Wes Guckert
Looks excellent to me, but suggest we add the corridor of Georgia Avenue from 108
to Viers Mill Road. If this scope is more than $5K of work, Id suggest for item 3
we select one or two representative examples of possible solutions to the most
difficult bottlenecks, rather than all of them.
Just my thought.
Jonathan

Cc: 'Wes Guckert'
Subject: Scope of Work by Wes Guckert
03-20-13
Gentlemen: Below is the draft scope of work that I propose we ask of Wes. Please
review and comment on it so that I may finalize in next day or so. Thanks. Mark
1.
TTG is to review Staff Draft of the Functional Plan, with
special focus on corridor treatments pertaining to Routes 29 and 355, and the
Randolph Road and Viers Mill Road corridors.
2.
TTG will also review its previous work for the Task Force
relating to the above corridors.
3.
Focusing on major bottlenecks and problem areas within each of
the above corridors, as well as those portions of corridors in which the Staff
Report proposes that the system operates within general mixed traffic, TTG is to
suggest specific solutions that will allow for full peak period dedicated lane
corridor treatments for 100% of each corridor. If any of the proposed solutions
include the taking of right of way, identify the areas in which such a taking is
necessary.
Wes: If you have any thoughts about the above, including any additional work that
might be necessary, please let me know. Thx. MW

To:
Cc:
'Wes Guckert'
Subject:
RE: Scope of Work by Wes Guckert
Looks excellent to me, but suggest we add the corridor of Georgia Avenue from 108
to Viers Mill Road. If this scope is more than $5K of work, Id suggest for item 3
we select one or two representative examples of possible solutions to the most
difficult bottlenecks, rather than all of them.
Just my thought.
Jonathan

Cc: 'Wes Guckert'
Subject: Scope of Work by Wes Guckert
03-20-13
1.
TTG is to review Staff Draft of the Functional Plan, with special
focus on corridor treatments pertaining to Routes 29 and 355, and the Randolph Road
and Viers Mill Road corridors.
2.
TTG will also review its previous work for the Task Force relating
to the above corridors.
3.
Focusing on major bottlenecks and problem areas within each of the
above corridors, as well as those portions of corridors in which the Staff Report
proposes that the system operates within general mixed traffic, TTG is to suggest
specific solutions that will allow for full peak period dedicated lane corridor
treatments for 100% of each corridor. If any of the proposed solutions include the
taking of right of way, identify the areas in which such a taking is necessary.

To:
Subject:
Transit - MPOHT
Attachments:
Proposal, 03-20-13.doc
03-20-13
Gentlemen:

group.

Thanks.
Mark

To:
Casey Anderson; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Cc:
'Wes Guckert'
Subject:
Scope of Work by Wes Guckert
03-20-13
1.
TTG is to review Staff Draft of the Functional Plan, with
special focus on corridor treatments pertaining to Routes 29 and 355, and the
Randolph Road and Viers Mill Road corridors.
2.
TTG will also review its previous work for the Task Force
relating to the above corridors.
3.
Focusing on major bottlenecks and problem areas within each of
the above corridors, as well as those portions of corridors in which the Staff
Report proposes that the system operates within general mixed traffic, TTG is to
suggest specific solutions that will allow for full peak period dedicated lane
corridor treatments for 100% of each corridor. If any of the proposed solutions
include the taking of right of way, identify the areas in which such a taking is
necessary.

To:
Casey Anderson; Jonathan Genn; 'Wes Guckert'; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Today's Meeting
Attachments:
Suggested Agenda, Small Group Meeting, 3-19-13.doc
Gentlemen:
my office.
Please see the attached suggested agenda for todays meeting at 3pm in
Thanks. Mark

To:
Casey Anderson; 'Wes Guckert'; Mark Winston
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: Meeting, Tuesday, March 19th at 3:00 pm
Attachments:
CfRT-JMG Outline of Response to Staff Draft MPOHT-031913.docx
Gentlemen:
In advance of our 3pm meeting today, I have attached a rough first draft outline of
a suggested strategic plan and response to the Staff Draft MPOH&T. It includes
associated "messaging" and financing considerations.
Don't worry if you are not able to reivew it before 3pm. I can explain it this
afternoon. You'll have plenty of time to critique it (tear it apart!).
See you at 3pm!
Jonathan
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Fax: 301-622-3507
Cell: 410-935-2599
Email: jonathan@percontee.com <mailto:jonathan@percontee.com>
________________________________
From: Casey Anderson [casey@kauffmananderson.com]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 3:40 PM
To: 'Wes Guckert'; 'L. Mark Winston'
Cc: Jonathan Genn; 'Street, Thomas'
Subject: RE: Meeting, Tuesday, March 19th at 3:00 pm
Great see you then

To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Casey@KauffmanAnderson.com; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject: Re: Meeting, Tuesday, March 19th at 3:00 pm
Sold !!!!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 18, 2013, at 1:57 PM, "L. Mark Winston" <mwinston@glazerwinston.com> wrote:
Yes, please.
<image001.jpg>
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Casey@KauffmanAnderson.com; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject: Re: Meeting, Tuesday, March 19th at 3:00 pm
Book 2 hours ?
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 18, 2013, at 1:51 PM, "L. Mark Winston" <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>
wrote:
03-18-13
Casey, Jonathan, Tom and Wes: The meeting is confirmed for tomorrow at
3pm in my office at the address below. Thanks very much. Mark
<image001.jpg>
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential information intended

only for the use of the individual or entity named above. The review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication to anyone other than
the intended addressee is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, promptly notify the sender by return email, and permanently delete this
message from your computer. Thank you.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
L. Mark Winston [mwinston@glazerwinston.com]

Monday, March 18, 2013 11:49 AM
'Stewart Schwartz'
Alex Posorske; Kelly Blynn; Street, Thomas; Jonathan Genn
Subject:
RE: For Review - Draft CSG Press Release for Today
03-18-13
Stewart: Thank you for sending the draft release to me for advance review. I ask
that you reconsider the quote ascribed to Kelly regarding what the Planning staff
is doing. It is too favorable.
I expect that representatives of the Task Force will be critically

reviewing the Planning staffs recommendations in the next few days and will
develop a position paper and testimony which opposes the proposal or at least
which opposes in part and supports in a limited way. There are a variety of
reasons for this; however, the central one from my standpoint is that the
recommended corridor treatments which include such a high percentage of mixed
traffic operation of the system will doom it to mediocrity or, more likely,
failure. Ridership metrics have been used to do this. If you look at Mr. Coles
responses to frequently asked questions he reflects, for example, in response to
the question whether or not the staff took into account a reconfigured Ride-On
network that will bring transit closer to people, you will see one example of how
inadequate ridership metrics may be in this case. Furthermore, BRT is different
from other transit modes. In the case of Metro Rail or light rail, what is
developed is all or nothing. In other words, ridership projections either
support or undermine the development of a rail or light rail corridor or line.
What has occurred in the case of the BRT analysis is that ridership metrics have
been used to break down a corridor into different types of treatments. If we are
looking at BRT as a more economical alternative to rail solutions and a
potential game changer but with similar performance characteristics to more
expensive modes we cannot achieve that if the treatments within corridors are
compromised from the beginning.
There are numerous other issues with the recommendations of the

Planning staff; however, the above explanation should be sufficient to justify
avoiding being supportive of the Planning staffs recommendations. Thanks for
reconsidering your position on this.
Mark
________________________________
From: Stewart Schwartz [mailto:stewart@smartergrowth.net]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 11:30 AM
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Alex Posorske; Kelly Blynn
Subject: For Review - Draft CSG Press Release for Today
Mark:
Ive attached the draft of a CSG release for today for your quick review. Given
that the press are likely to be paying attention to the two separate briefings, we
felt we need to show that both represent progress and they are not incompatible.
Wed like to send this out by 1 pm or so.
Thanks,
Stewart
Stewart Schwartz
Executive Director
202-675-0016 ext 121
stewart@smartergrowth.net
www.smartergrowth.net
Twitter:
@csgstewart
CSG Twitter:
Address:
@betterDCregion
316 F Street NE, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20002

Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:34 PM
To:
Casey Anderson
Cc:
Wes Guckert; Mark Winston; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: Planning Staff's Recommendations for Amendments to MPOHT
If more convenient for others, I could probably arrange to start at 3pm on Tuesday
(or if you started earlier, I could meet up with you at 3pm on Tuesday).
Jonathan

and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 17, 2013, at 8:54 PM, "Casey Anderson" <casey@kauffmananderson.com> wrote:
I could do any time on Tuesday or Friday

To: Wes Guckert
Cc: L. Mark Winston; Casey@KauffmanAnderson.com; Thomas Street
(thomas.street@MontgomeryCountyMD.gov)
Subject: Re: Planning Staff's Recommendations for Amendments to MPOHT
As of now, I will make myself available for this important discussion during
any of the following blocks of time:
Tues, Mar 19 b/t 4pm and 11pm

Wed, Mar 20 b/t 2pm and 5:30pm
Thurs, Mar 21 b/t 2pm and 11pm
Fri, Mar 22 b/t 8am and 1pm
I too have had a number of epiphanies based on all our research and analyses,
and now have a very clear view of the who, what, where, when, how, and why of a
very bold and ambitious mobility plan, which I believe is exactly what Mont Co must
do, would be embraced enthusiastically by the Rockefeller Foundation and the public
infrastructure financing markets; but (I will forewarn all of you) is not for the
faint of heart!
When we meet, I can present the "seven second sound bite" and will try to
describe the entire strategic game plan in a slightly mite thorough "seven minute
sound gulp".
Looking forward to a robust discussion and strategy meeting.
Jonathan

and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office:
301-622-0100
Mobile:
410-935-2599
Email:
Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 17, 2013, at 9:48 AM, "Wes Guckert" <wguckert@trafficgroup.com> wrote:
Weds march 20 or friday march 22 for wes or 4 pm on tuesday
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 17, 2013, at 9:38 AM, "L. Mark Winston"
03-17-13
Gentlemen: It has only taken me two years to figure it out, but

at last I have. What is troubling me about the use of ridership modeling in
evaluating corridor treatment for high quality BRT is that when ridership is used
to evaluate whether or not to develop heavy rail or light rail projects what gets
built is a full heavy rail or full light rail corridor or line. We dont build a
rail corridor with some portions in mixed traffic. It is all or nothing.
However, in the BRT arena, if we use ridership projections it may result as it
has in this instance in recommending corridors with a variety of treatments,
usually on the same corridor including significant portions of mixed traffic.
Mixed traffic will significantly (and perhaps fatally) compromise the performance
of the corridor and the entire network.
While I disagree with the whole philosophy of using

ridership modeling in this case for many reasons, and believe we should build the
vision notwithstanding modeling (because modeling limits our vision and will lead
to a build out of a network inadequate to meet our future goals and needs),
whatever level of build-out we decide on will be severely compromised if we allow
for mixed traffic within any corridor.
My view is that the only way to maximize use of the

network that is built is to allow for the highest possible level of performance in
terms of speed, reliability and safety. The only way to achieve this optimal level
of performance is to dedicate lanes to the network. Otherwise, it will allow for
economic develop to take place because we will rationalize that result but it
will not be sufficient to change behavior. Thus, we need to do whatever is
necessary to achieve dedicated lanes, either through taking property or
rededicating lanes. I am concerned that failing to do so will make the investment
that may be made useless. I understand that we may be forced to build the network
in smaller pieces and over a longer period of time than I would like, but if we
compromise what we do build the idea may fail and then we are in a worse position
than ever.
In looking at responses from those invited to attend

a discussion of the staff recommendations I note that Casey will be out from March
25 through April 1 and Tom has some unavailability as well. I would like to
arrange a time when the addressees of this email can sit down before Casey leaves
town to have a preliminary discussion before the larger group gets together. I
know it will help me think through the problems and begin work on a draft of a
position paper for the Task Force and testimony to present to the Planning Board.
I welcome your thoughts on scheduling this early

meeting (next week) and on my comments above. Thanks.
Mark
<image001.jpg>03-
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential information

intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. The review,

To:
Wes Guckert
Cc:
Subject:
Re: Planning Staff's Recommendations for Amendments to MPOHT
As of now, I will make myself available for this important discussion during any of
the following blocks of time:
Tues, Mar 19 b/t 4pm and 11pm
Wed, Mar 20 b/t 2pm and 5:30pm
Thurs, Mar 21 b/t 2pm and 11pm
Fri, Mar 22 b/t 8am and 1pm
I too have had a number of epiphanies based on all our research and analyses, and
now have a very clear view of the who, what, where, when, how, and why of a very
bold and ambitious mobility plan, which I believe is exactly what Mont Co must do,
would be embraced enthusiastically by the Rockefeller Foundation and the public
infrastructure financing markets; but (I will forewarn all of you) is not for the
faint of heart!
When we meet, I can present the "seven second sound bite" and will try to describe
the entire strategic game plan in a slightly mite thorough "seven minute sound
gulp".
Looking forward to a robust discussion and strategy meeting.
Jonathan
and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 17, 2013, at 9:48 AM, "Wes Guckert" <wguckert@trafficgroup.com> wrote:
Weds march 20 or friday march 22 for wes or 4 pm on tuesday

Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 17, 2013, at 9:38 AM, "L. Mark Winston" <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>
wrote:
03-17-13
Gentlemen: It has only taken me two years to figure it out, but at

last I have. What is troubling me about the use of ridership modeling in
evaluating corridor treatment for high quality BRT is that when ridership is used
to evaluate whether or not to develop heavy rail or light rail projects what gets
built is a full heavy rail or full light rail corridor or line. We dont build a
rail corridor with some portions in mixed traffic. It is all or nothing.
However, in the BRT arena, if we use ridership projections it may result as it
has in this instance in recommending corridors with a variety of treatments,
usually on the same corridor including significant portions of mixed traffic.
Mixed traffic will significantly (and perhaps fatally) compromise the performance
of the corridor and the entire network.
While I disagree with the whole philosophy of using

ridership modeling in this case for many reasons, and believe we should build the
vision notwithstanding modeling (because modeling limits our vision and will lead
to a build out of a network inadequate to meet our future goals and needs),
whatever level of build-out we decide on will be severely compromised if we allow
for mixed traffic within any corridor.
My view is that the only way to maximize use of the network

that is built is to allow for the highest possible level of performance in terms of
speed, reliability and safety. The only way to achieve this optimal level of
performance is to dedicate lanes to the network. Otherwise, it will allow for
economic develop to take place because we will rationalize that result but it
will not be sufficient to change behavior. Thus, we need to do whatever is
necessary to achieve dedicated lanes, either through taking property or
rededicating lanes. I am concerned that failing to do so will make the investment
that may be made useless. I understand that we may be forced to build the network
in smaller pieces and over a longer period of time than I would like, but if we
compromise what we do build the idea may fail and then we are in a worse position
than ever.
In looking at responses from those invited to attend a

discussion of the staff recommendations I note that Casey will be out from March 25
through April 1 and Tom has some unavailability as well. I would like to arrange a
time when the addressees of this email can sit down before Casey leaves town to
have a preliminary discussion before the larger group gets together. I know it
will help me think through the problems and begin work on a draft of a position
paper for the Task Force and testimony to present to the Planning Board.
I welcome your thoughts on scheduling this early meeting

(next week) and on my comments above. Thanks.
Mark
<image001.jpg>03-
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential information intended

only for the use of the individual or entity named above. The review,
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:38 AM
To:
Subject:
Planning Staff's Recommendations for Amendments to MPOHT
03-17-13
Gentlemen: It has only taken me two years to figure it out, but at last I have.
What is troubling me about the use of ridership modeling in evaluating corridor
treatment for high quality BRT is that when ridership is used to evaluate whether
or not to develop heavy rail or light rail projects what gets built is a full heavy
rail or full light rail corridor or line. We dont build a rail corridor with some
portions in mixed traffic. It is all or nothing. However, in the BRT arena,
if we use ridership projections it may result as it has in this instance in
recommending corridors with a variety of treatments, usually on the same corridor
including significant portions of mixed traffic. Mixed traffic will significantly
(and perhaps fatally) compromise the performance of the corridor and the entire
network.
While I disagree with the whole philosophy of using ridership modeling

in this case for many reasons, and believe we should build the vision
notwithstanding modeling (because modeling limits our vision and will lead to a
build out of a network inadequate to meet our future goals and needs), whatever
level of build-out we decide on will be severely compromised if we allow for mixed
traffic within any corridor.
My view is that the only way to maximize use of the network that is
built is to allow for the highest possible level of performance in terms of speed,
reliability and safety. The only way to achieve this optimal level of performance
is to dedicate lanes to the network. Otherwise, it will allow for economic develop
to take place because we will rationalize that result but it will not be
sufficient to change behavior. Thus, we need to do whatever is necessary to
achieve dedicated lanes, either through taking property or rededicating lanes. I
am concerned that failing to do so will make the investment that may be made
useless. I understand that we may be forced to build the network in smaller pieces
and over a longer period of time than I would like, but if we compromise what we do
build the idea may fail and then we are in a worse position than ever.
In looking at responses from those invited to attend a discussion of

the staff recommendations I note that Casey will be out from March 25 through April
1 and Tom has some unavailability as well. I would like to arrange a time when the
addressees of this email can sit down before Casey leaves town to have a
preliminary discussion before the larger group gets together. I know it will
help me think through the problems and begin work on a draft of a position paper
for the Task Force and testimony to present to the Planning Board.
I welcome your thoughts on scheduling this early meeting (next week)

and on my comments above. Thanks.
Mark
03-

To:
Mark Winston; Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Dan Wilhelm; Tina Slater
(slater.tina@gmail.com); Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Street, Thomas
Subject:
Communities for Rapid Transit
Dear Interim CfRT Executive Committee Members:
I was able to put a hold on some available office space (~1500 sq ft) in our
Montgomery Office Center Building at the corner of Fenton and Cameron Street in
Silver Spring, which is about a block away from the Park and Planning Commission
office building and walking distance to the Silver Spring Metro Station.
Ordinarily, including utilities (heating, A/C, lighting, electricity --- but not
phone, internet, cable, etc.) the space would rent for $3,000/month ($36K per
year). But I was able to get permission from the owner (my boss, John Gudelsky) to
give an additional in-kind donation to CfRT to cut this rent cost down by 50% to
$1,500/month ($18K per year). The Term Sheet outline is attached.
I will recuse myself from voting on this proposal. Please let me know if CfRT
would want this space for a one-year lease a under these terms; otherwise, I will
have to tell the management company to release my hold so they can lease that space
out to another tenant prospect. If you do vote for this space, I would suggest we
consider leasing it from April 15, 2013 to April 14, 2014 (which is mostly coextensive with the RF grant term) and would give the management company time to
install new carpet and paint the entire space for CfRT move-in (at no extra charge
to CfRT). But Id like to give the management company the courtesy of as much
advance notice as possible.
Feel free to call me with any questions/comments.
Thanks.
Jonathan

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Office Telephone:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Office Telecopier:
Mobile Telephone:
Email:
301-622-3507
410-935-2599
From: Wes Guckert [wguckert@trafficgroup.com]

To:
Mark Winston; Dan Wilhelm; Tina Slater; Francine Waters; 'Dan Wilhelm';
Street, Thomas; Susan Brown
Cc:
Casey Anderson
Subject:
RE: Staff Draft of the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master
Plan for 3/18/13 Planning Board meeting
I will send a meeting scheduler and we can all fill it in for last week of march
and first week of april, susan ?
Wes Guckert, PTP

President
Baltimore, MD 21236
T 410.931.6600
M 410.440.9227
F 410.931.6601
wguckert@trafficgroup.com

To: 'Wilhelm, Dan'; Tina Slater; Francine Waters; 'Dan Wilhelm'; Street, Thomas;
Wes Guckert
Cc: Casey@KauffmanAnderson.com
Subject: RE: Staff Draft of the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan
for 3/18/13 Planning Board meeting
I agree with that. My sense is that we should allow a week to prepare for the
first meeting. So that means that we could set something up for the period between
March 20 and March 29th. The second meeting should follow within a week
thereafter. We could set a Task Force meeting for mid April. That would give us a
couple of weeks to finalize a position and prepare testimony.
________________________________
From: Wilhelm, Dan [mailto:dwilhelm@mitre.org]
To: L. Mark Winston; Tina Slater; Francine Waters; 'Dan Wilhelm'; Street, Thomas;
'Wes Guckert'
I just started to pull the document from the web site.
It contains a six page
cover letter followed by a 67 page main document and 14 appendices. I have yet to
print the appendices. My point is that we need to give a some time to read this
before we talk.

To: Wilhelm, Dan; Tina Slater; Francine Waters; 'Dan Wilhelm'; Street, Thomas; 'Wes
Guckert'
Ladies and Gentlemen: I accept Dans recommendation to avoid weekends so this

Sundays meeting suggestion is cancelled. I would appreciate it if each addressee
of this email would give me their availability for the week of March 18th (Monday),
through March 29th (Friday). It probably makes sense to schedule the meeting to
start at 4pm or later, and to run for 2 or 3 hours. Thanks. Mark
________________________________
'Wes Guckert'
Mark
I have a family commitment that day. I recommend we stay away from meetings on
weekends.
Dan

To: Tina Slater; Francine Waters; 'Dan Wilhelm'; Wilhelm, Dan; Street, Thomas; 'Wes
Guckert'
Subject: FW: Staff Draft of the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan
Ladies and Gentlemen: Below you will find the transmittal email from Larry Cole
containing links regarding the Planning Board staffs draft of proposed amendments
to the Master Plan of Highways and Transit ways.
I propose that we schedule two meetings to discuss the report and how
the Task Force may respond to it. Presumably, the Planning Board will embrace this
draft as the public hearing draft at its meeting on March 18th. The public will
then have about 6 weeks to review same before a public hearing scheduled for May 2,
2013.
I propose that we meet on this Sunday, May 17th, in my office, from

Noon to 3:00pm. If this is a problem for too many of my colleagues then we can
work out other scheduling. We would schedule the next meeting at our first
meeting.
The agenda of the first meeting would be for us to be sure we

understand what is contained in the Planning staff proposals and to begin to
formulate our position with respect to it. Wes Guckert has agreed to serve as a
special consultant to the group on this matter. If we make progress during this
first meeting, and give guidance to whomever is tasked with drafting a Task Force
position, the second meeting will review and comment on a draft. My plan would
then be to circulate the draft to Task Force members and call the Task Force
together to discuss, amend or modify if it wishes, and ultimately to approve, a
Task Force position and potential testimony.
I would also like to try to arrange a session with the Planning Board
at which representatives of the Task Force could discuss various aspects of the
Planning staffs report.
Please let me know whether a meeting this Sunday works and, if not, if
you have other suggestions. Thanks.
Mark
________________________________
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:43 PM
Subject: Staff Draft of the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan for
3/18/13 Planning Board meeting
Below is the link to the Staff Draft of the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional
Master Plan, consisting of three parts: cover memo, plan, and appendix. There are a
couple of graphics that still need to be added to the plan; they should be ready
shortly and will be updated on our website when they are:
http://www.montgomeryplanningboard.org/agenda/2013/agenda20130318e.html
<http://www.montgomeryplanningboard.org/agenda/2013/agenda20130318e.html>
If you have a problem loading the Plan, shown as the Attachment in the above link,
its also here:
http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/highways/documents/BRTStaffDraft38-13.pdf
<http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/highways/documents/BRTStaffDraft3
-8-13.pdf> on the BRT plan webpage:
http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/highways/brt.shtm
The Planning Board will review this draft for potential publication next Monday,
March 18, 2013 at 6 pm. No public testimony will be taken at that time. After the
30-day review period, the Public Hearing is anticipated to be held on May 2, 2013.
Lawrence Cole, P.E.

301-495-4528
301-495-1302 (fax)

To:
Dan Wilhelm; Tina Slater; Francine Waters; 'Dan Wilhelm'; Street, Thomas;
'Wes Guckert'
Cc:
Casey Anderson
Subject:
I agree with that. My sense is that we should allow a week to prepare for the
first meeting. So that means that we could set something up for the period between
March 20 and March 29th. The second meeting should follow within a week
thereafter. We could set a Task Force meeting for mid April. That would give us a
couple of weeks to finalize a position and prepare testimony.
________________________________
'Wes Guckert'
I just started to pull the document from the web site. It contains a six page
before we talk.

Guckert'

________________________________
'Wes Guckert'
Mark
weekends.
Dan

Guckert'
2013.

meeting.


Mark
________________________________
its also here:
http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/highways/documents/BRTStaffDraft38-13.pdf on the BRT plan webpage:
Lawrence Cole, P.E.


301-495-4528
301-495-1302 (fax)
From: Wilhelm, Dan [dwilhelm@mitre.org]

To:
Mark Winston; Tina Slater; Francine Waters; 'Dan Wilhelm'; Street, Thomas;
'Wes Guckert'
Cc:
Casey Anderson
Subject:
I just started to pull the document from the web site. It contains a six page
before we talk.

Guckert'

________________________________
'Wes Guckert'
Mark
weekends.
Dan

Guckert'
2013.

meeting.

Mark
________________________________
its also here:
Lawrence Cole, P.E.


301-495-4528
301-495-1302 (fax)

To:
'Wes Guckert'
Cc:
Casey Anderson
Subject:
Mark
I think we should also listen to the planning board discussion on March 18, which
is at 6:00 PM.

Guckert'

________________________________

'Wes Guckert'
Mark
weekends.
Dan

Guckert'
2013.

meeting.

Mark
________________________________
its also here:
Lawrence Cole, P.E.

301-495-4528
301-495-1302 (fax)

To:
Dan Wilhelm; Tina Slater; Francine Waters; 'Dan Wilhelm'; Street, Thomas;
'Wes Guckert'
Cc:
Casey Anderson
Subject:
________________________________
'Wes Guckert'
Mark
weekends.
Dan

Guckert'
2013.

meeting.

Mark
________________________________
its also here:
Lawrence Cole, P.E.

301-495-4528
301-495-1302 (fax)

To:
'Wes Guckert'
Cc:
Casey Anderson
Subject:
Mark
weekends.
Dan

Guckert'
2013.

meeting.

Mark
________________________________
its also here:
Lawrence Cole, P.E.

301-495-4528
301-495-1302 (fax)

To:
Mark Winston
Cc:
Tina Slater; Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas; Casey
Anderson
Subject:
Re: Staff Draft of the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master
I can do this sunday 11-2
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 13, 2013, at 8:40 AM, "L. Mark Winston" <mwinston@glazerwinston.com> wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen: Below you will find the transmittal email from Larry
Cole containing links regarding the Planning Board staffs draft of proposed
amendments to the Master Plan of Highways and Transit ways.
I propose that we schedule two meetings to discuss the report and

how the Task Force may respond to it. Presumably, the Planning Board will embrace
this draft as the public hearing draft at its meeting on March 18th. The public
will then have about 6 weeks to review same before a public hearing scheduled for
May 2, 2013..
I propose that we meet on this Sunday, May 17th, in my office,

from Noon to 3:00pm. If this is a problem for too many of my colleagues then we
can work out other scheduling. We would schedule the next meeting at our first
meeting.

I would also like to try to arrange a session with the Planning

Board at which representatives of the Task Force could discuss various aspects of
the Planning staffs report.
Please let me know whether a meeting this Sunday works and, if

not, if you have other suggestions. Thanks.
Mark
<image001.jpg>
________________________________
Subject: Staff Draft of the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master
Below is the link to the Staff Draft of the Countywide Transit Corridors
Functional Master Plan, consisting of three parts: cover memo, plan, and appendix.
There are a couple of graphics that still need to be added to the plan; they should
be ready shortly and will be updated on our website when they are:
If you have a problem loading the Plan, shown as the Attachment in the above
link, its also here:
The Planning Board will review this draft for potential publication next
Monday, March 18, 2013 at 6 pm. No public testimony will be taken at that time.
After the 30-day review period, the Public Hearing is anticipated to be held on May
2, 2013.
Lawrence Cole, P.E.

301-495-4528
301-495-1302 (fax)

To:
Mark Winston
Cc:
Tina Slater; Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas; Casey
Anderson
Subject:
Re: Staff Draft of the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master
This sun march 17?
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 13, 2013, at 8:40 AM, "L. Mark Winston" <mwinston@glazerwinston.com> wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen: Below you will find the transmittal email from Larry
Cole containing links regarding the Planning Board staffs draft of proposed
amendments to the Master Plan of Highways and Transit ways.
I propose that we schedule two meetings to discuss the report and

how the Task Force may respond to it. Presumably, the Planning Board will embrace
this draft as the public hearing draft at its meeting on March 18th. The public
will then have about 6 weeks to review same before a public hearing scheduled for
May 2, 2013..
I propose that we meet on this Sunday, May 17th, in my office,

from Noon to 3:00pm. If this is a problem for too many of my colleagues then we
can work out other scheduling. We would schedule the next meeting at our first
meeting.

I would also like to try to arrange a session with the Planning

Board at which representatives of the Task Force could discuss various aspects of
the Planning staffs report.
Please let me know whether a meeting this Sunday works and, if

not, if you have other suggestions. Thanks.
Mark
<image001.jpg>
________________________________
Subject: Staff Draft of the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master
Below is the link to the Staff Draft of the Countywide Transit Corridors
Functional Master Plan, consisting of three parts: cover memo, plan, and appendix.
There are a couple of graphics that still need to be added to the plan; they should
be ready shortly and will be updated on our website when they are:
If you have a problem loading the Plan, shown as the Attachment in the above
link, its also here:
The Planning Board will review this draft for potential publication next
Monday, March 18, 2013 at 6 pm. No public testimony will be taken at that time.
After the 30-day review period, the Public Hearing is anticipated to be held on May
2, 2013.
Lawrence Cole, P.E.

301-495-4528
301-495-1302 (fax)

To:
Tina Slater; Francine Waters; 'Dan Wilhelm'; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas;
'Wes Guckert'
Cc:
Casey Anderson
Subject:
FW: Staff Draft of the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master
2013.

meeting.

Mark
________________________________
its also here:
Lawrence Cole, P.E.

301-495-4528
301-495-1302 (fax)

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Transit
Importance: High
Confidential
03-05-13
Tom: I am sure I do not need to point this out to you, but there are ways we can
work closely with and be helpful to MDOT as it tries to leverage its resources to
develop more transit in Maryland without overwhelming what is available for roads,
highway and bridge projects. To do this, we and MDOT would build on some of the
thinking we did in the Transit Task Force. I believe some of this thinking could
be helpful to MDOT and the Governor as they round up votes for the Governors
proposal. The reasoning goes as follows.
For the Red Line and Purple Line, if those projects move forward with
Federal funding, the State share of funding could come in part by using a special
taxing district structure to borrow funds with the debt service on bonds supported
in major part by annual debt service payments from the State. Similarly, operating
costs could be funded in the same way. To the extent of a local contribution
requirement for the Red and Purple Lines, those could be funded by a special
district property tax in a district created along the applicable corridors. The
capital costs for these projects, as well as operating expenses, would come from
special taxing districts created for the purpose.
Similarly, MDOT could use revenues from the new funding sources to
assist localities like Montgomery to build and operate transit assets (like the
RTS) or other transportation assets for that matter. Debt issued would not be
State debt and would not count against County limits as we have discussed.
Again, this allows the State to effectively leverage its resources, allows
localities to move ahead with projects, and does not unduly squeeze the
availability of capital for non-transit projects.
In addition to the needed enactment of a transportation funding bill,

it will be necessary to enact the Madelino amendments to the development district
law by allowing operating and maintenance costs to be a qualified expenses under
special taxing districts and it would also be desirable to enact the differential
tax rate portion of his bill as well (One argument that could be used about this is
that the differential does not need to apply to real property taxes generally, only
to those within special taxing district. Thus, a locality that did not elect to
create a STD would not be able to tax at different rates.)
To reiterate, I believe that these techniques should not only be

considered from a public finance standpoint but they can also be helpful in
securing votes particularly from people who would otherwise support a funding
bill except for the fact that they perceive it will be used disproportionately for
transit. To the extent you would like it, I would be happy to participate in any
presentation of these thoughts to the appropriate people that you or the County
Executive might arrange. In particular, it might be useful to sit down with Leif
Dormsjo to go over these ideas. Just let me know.
Mark

Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 2:47 PM
To:
Street, Thomas
Tom: You should go on the Planning Boards website, go to the agenda for todays
meeting and click on the staff BRT report. Attached to this report is an
additional report from ITDP. Read it. It is even more obnoxious than the first
memo we have been focused on. It was apparently prepared in December 2012. It has
numerous editorial remarks interspersed with supposedly expert analytic comments.
It is hard to know what to do about it. Did MCDOT commission this study?
Opponents of a real RTV network should hire ITDP to kill or at least undermine the
effort. Mark

To:
'Kelly Blynn'; Stewart Schwartz
Cc:
Tina Slater; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; djwilhelm@verizon.net; Francine
Waters; Street, Thomas; Alex Posorske
Subject:
RE: RELEASE: Montgomery Planners Propose 78-Mile Rapid Transit system
Kelly and Stewart: I want to make you aware of a few things. To be clear, neither
the Task Force nor the Executive Committee of CFT have taken a position on this
yet. However, I am trying to arrange for small funding to enable us to engage a
consultant to assist us in evaluating the staff report and commenting on it.
The ITDP report has been given entirely too much attention by both the Planning
staff and Council. ITDP asserted that it was engaged by the County Executive to do
its evaluation. That is not true. Also, in addition to not having performed
ridership forecasting, a number of us believe that the ridership modeling
methodology used by the Planning staff misses the fundamental point that we should
be planning for the long term needs of the community, taking into account what we
need in order to allow the build-out of critical land use plans and to afford the
necessary connectivity for the County. Applying traditional ridership projecting
will almost inevitably mean that the system built will be incomplete. In this
case, the system recommended by the Planning staff contains a very high proportion
of mixed traffic corridor configuration, especially in the first stage. That
will mean a less than optimal system performance, which could doom how the public
reacts to it and which could limit public support for future improvements in the
quality of corridor operation and system expansion.
[As an aside, please note that while the CCT is not a part of this recommendation
it has already been approved in planning and will eventually be a part of the RTV
network. This will add 9.1 miles to the network initially and about 15 miles when
both stages of the CCT are completed.]
While you may want to highlight the staff proposal as a positive development, you
may also want to be more circumspect and qualified. It is not simply that the
proposal is too limited in scope (eliminating much connectivity) but also that the
quality of what is being recommended is severely compromised.
Finally, while this comment requires more concrete analysis, in some ways the
recommendations may cross the line between what would typically be in a master plan
of highways and transit ways type of document and detailed planning and
engineering for the actual development of a system
Again, let me be clear that I am speaking only for myself in the above comments.
Hopefully, if we get the resources to have the benefit of a consultants help, we
will have more to say about what has been proposed.
Thanks.
Mark
________________________________
From: Kelly Blynn [mailto:kelly@smartergrowth.net]
To: Stewart Schwartz
Cc: L. Mark Winston; Tina Slater; Wilhelm, Dan; Jonathan Genn;
djwilhelm@verizon.net; Francine Waters; Street, Thomas; Alex Posorske
Subject: Re: RELEASE: Montgomery Planners Propose 78-Mile Rapid Transit system
Yes, this is it:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 21st, 2013
Contacts:
Stewart Schwartz, Coalition for Smarter Growth, (703) 599-6437

Montgomery Planners Propose 78-Mile Rapid Transit system
Today, Montgomery County planning staff present

<http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/calendar/events/index.php?
com=detail&eID=607&year=2013&month=02> to the Planning Board a 78-mile version of
the proposed Rapid Transit System, based on several months of data-driven modeling
and analysis. The Rapid Transit System would be a premium, reliable transit
service using dedicated lanes as much as possible to bypass traffic, running
frequently throughout the day, and stopping at enhanced stations featuring real
time arrival information and efficient boarding like that found on Metro.
The Rapid Transit System will complement the Purple Line and our Metro system,
offering high quality transit to more of Montgomery County and helping to address
traffic and future economic development. It is an essential investment, providing
residents more affordable transportation and a better option than sitting in
traffic," said Stewart Schwartz, Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter
Growth.
Facing an additional 200,000 residents, 200,000 new jobs, and a 22% increase in the
amount of time residents will spend on roadways by 2040, planners know that the
countys roadways, already overburdened with traffic, will be unable to handle
additional vehicles. Their analysis, forecasting ridership to 2040, demonstrated
that dedicating lanes to transit on several corridors could move more people per
lane than individual vehicles, while improving traffic countywide. They are
recommending a phased approach based on that data, with a first phase that would
include two lanes dedicated to the Rapid Transit System in the center of Rockville
Pike and northern US29, and one reversible lane in the direction of rush hour
traffic on parts of Georgia Ave, Viers Mill/University Blvd, and New Hampshire
Avenue.
Their models show that their recommended network would attract a
ridership of approximately 184,000 daily riders by 2040
<http://www.smartergrowth.net/resources/next-generation-of-transit-the-key-tomontgomerys-green-future/attachment/brt-coalition-for-smarter-growth-meeting-2-1313-v2/> .
Said Lindsay Hoffman of Friends of White Flint, Weve come together in our
neighborhoods and supported a vision for a walkable community in White Flint where
it will be possible to leave the car at home and live a healthier, more affordable
lifestyle. Improved and expanded transit service on Rockville Pike is critical to
making that vision possible, and we as residents will need to work together to
ensure this proposal meets our communities needs and becomes a reality.
"The planning staff's network is smaller than the full Transit Task Force proposal
but also much larger than the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
(ITDP) proposal. The staff's analysis is both rigorous and practical, and results
in a network that can be effectively implemented," concluded Schwartz.
In the planning staffs brief, they reported

<http://www.montgomeryplanningboard.org/agenda/2013/documents/20130221_CountywideTr
ansitCorridors.pdf> , ITDP did not do any ridership forecasting, whereas our
transportation modeling work has shown that the forecast 2040 ridership on MD355 is
far higher and we are confident that we should begin planning for a two-lane median
busway for most of this corridor.
The Montgomery County Planning Board will now have a month to review the staffs
recommendations before they release a draft for public hearings to be held in the
beginning of May. After public hearings, the Planning Board will submit their
draft proposal to the County Council.
###
Kelly Blynn
Washington, D.C. 20002-4939
o: (202) 675-0016 ext. 127 | c: (610) 220-5378
twitter: @kellyblynn
<http://www.smartergrowth.net/>
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Stewart Schwartz <stewart@smartergrowth.net>

wrote:
Mark:
I think Kelly sent it to you and it is out. I reread and the one quote from me
which will give you some heartburn is the one where I talk about the PB proposal
being less than the TF but larger than the ITDP.
She can resend it to you if you cant find the email.
Stewart
Stewart Schwartz
Executive Director
202-675-0016 ext 121
Twitter:
@csgstewart
CSG Twitter:
Address:
@betterDCregion

Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:55 AM
To: 'Stewart Schwartz'; Kelly Blynn; Tina Slater; Wilhelm, Dan; Jonathan Genn;
djwilhelm@verizon.net; Francine Waters; Street, Thomas
Cc: Alex Posorske
Subject: RE: RELEASE: Montgomery Planners Propose 78-Mile Rapid Transit system
Could we see a draft of the statement before it goes out?
________________________________
From: Stewart Schwartz [mailto:stewart@smartergrowth.net]
To: L. Mark Winston; Kelly Blynn; Tina Slater; Wilhelm, Dan; Jonathan Genn;
Cc: Alex Posorske
Mark:
Its my responsibility. I should have ensured we sent it your way and given a
heads up and time for comment. Weve been hit by so many negative stories that we
needed a positive spin and sense of forward progress.
Some inconsistency is not a problem.

good.
Stewart
If you do a release pushing for more, thats
Stewart Schwartz
Executive Director
202-675-0016 ext 121
Twitter:
@csgstewart
CSG Twitter:
Address:
@betterDCregion

To: 'Kelly Blynn'; Tina Slater; Wilhelm, Dan; Jonathan Genn; djwilhelm@verizon.net;
Francine Waters; Street, Thomas
Cc: Alex Posorske; Stewart Schwartz
Kelly: Perhaps we should talk before you put out a release on this. Our reaction
is not completely positive and if your release is there probably will be an
inconsistency. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston; Tina Slater; Wilhelm, Dan; Jonathan Genn;
Cc: Alex Posorske; Stewart Schwartz
Subject: RELEASE: Montgomery Planners Propose 78-Mile Rapid Transit system
Hi everyone,
Just wanted to let you know about the release we're putting out today as the
planning staff makes their recommendations to the board, hoping to garner some more
positive media coverage than we've seen of late. We'll be sending a note to our
email list as well. Hope you'll consider putting out a positive word as well!
Cheers,
Kelly Blynn
o: (202) 675-0016 ext. 127 | c: (610) 220-5378
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 21st, 2013
Contacts:
Stewart Schwartz, Coalition for Smarter Growth, (703) 599-6437
Montgomery Planners Propose 78-Mile Rapid Transit system
Today, Montgomery County planning staff present

<http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/calendar/events/index.php?
com=detail&eID=607&year=2013&month=02> to the Planning Board a 78-mile version of
the proposed Rapid Transit System, based on several months of data-driven modeling
and analysis. The Rapid Transit System would be a premium, reliable transit
service using dedicated lanes as much as possible to bypass traffic, running
frequently throughout the day, and stopping at enhanced stations featuring real
time arrival information and efficient boarding like that found on Metro.
The Rapid Transit System will complement the Purple Line and our Metro system,
offering high quality transit to more of Montgomery County and helping to address
traffic and future economic development. It is an essential investment, providing
residents more affordable transportation and a better option than sitting in
traffic," said Stewart Schwartz, Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter
Growth.
Facing an additional 200,000 residents, 200,000 new jobs, and a 22% increase in the
amount of time residents will spend on roadways by 2040, planners know that the
countys roadways, already overburdened with traffic, will be unable to handle
additional vehicles. Their analysis, forecasting ridership to 2040, demonstrated
that dedicating lanes to transit on several corridors could move more people per
lane than individual vehicles, while improving traffic countywide. They are
recommending a phased approach based on that data, with a first phase that would
include two lanes dedicated to the Rapid Transit System in the center of Rockville
Pike and northern US29, and one reversible lane in the direction of rush hour
traffic on parts of Georgia Ave, Viers Mill/University Blvd, and New Hampshire
Avenue.
Their models show that their recommended network would attract a
ridership of approximately 184,000 daily riders by 2040
<http://www.smartergrowth.net/resources/next-generation-of-transit-the-key-tomontgomerys-green-future/attachment/brt-coalition-for-smarter-growth-meeting-2-1313-v2/> .
Said Lindsay Hoffman of Friends of White Flint, Weve come together in our
neighborhoods and supported a vision for a walkable community in White Flint where
it will be possible to leave the car at home and live a healthier, more affordable
lifestyle. Improved and expanded transit service on Rockville Pike is critical to
making that vision possible, and we as residents will need to work together to
ensure this proposal meets our communities needs and becomes a reality.
"The planning staff's network is smaller than the full Transit Task Force proposal
but also much larger than the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
(ITDP) proposal. The staff's analysis is both rigorous and practical, and results
in a network that can be effectively implemented," concluded Schwartz.
In the planning staffs brief, they reported

<http://www.montgomeryplanningboard.org/agenda/2013/documents/20130221_CountywideTr
ansitCorridors.pdf> , ITDP did not do any ridership forecasting, whereas our
transportation modeling work has shown that the forecast 2040 ridership on MD355 is
far higher and we are confident that we should begin planning for a two-lane median
busway for most of this corridor.
The Montgomery County Planning Board will now have a month to review the staffs
recommendations before they release a draft for public hearings to be held in the
beginning of May. After public hearings, the Planning Board will submit their
draft proposal to the County Council.
###

Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:55 PM
To:
Cc:
Street, Thomas; 'Michael Boone'
Subject:
RE: Grant to Montgomery County Revenue Authority for benefit of Transit
Task Force
02-20-13
Benjie: Good afternoon. Thanks for your note. My prior email to you below
mentioned a request to extend the grant to June 30, 2013. Does your note below
suggest that such an additional extension is not possible or would not be granted?
If an extension is possible then we request it. In any event, I will prepare a
narrative report on the grant and get it to you as soon as possible. Thanks for
your consideration and guidance. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Street, Thomas; 'Michael Boone'
Subject: RE: Grant to Montgomery County Revenue Authority for benefit of Transit
Task Force
Hi Mark,
Since youre taking it from Contingency and the amount is under 5% of the total it
would be de minimis so there is no need to request for a budget amendment.
BUT what is critical is that the grant term has expired. The last extension was
for 9/30/2012. Technically, you cannot spend any of those resources after that
date.
We also need a final financial and narrative report which was due two months after
the end of the current grant term (due end of November).
Let me know if you have clarifications
Regards,
Benjamin de la Pea
www.rockfound.org

Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:28 PM
Cc: Street, Thomas; 'Michael Boone'
Subject: Grant to Montgomery County Revenue Authority for benefit of Transit Task
Force
02-19-13
Ben: Good afternoon. I apologize for the delay in responding to your request for
follow-up on the above-referenced grant matter.
With respect to the expired grant and grant balance of $5,131.95 in

connection with the above-referenced grant, we request: (1) an extension in the
grant period through and including June 30, 2013; and (2) an authorization to amend
the grant budget by transferring the entire outstanding balance from contingency to
the Conceptual Design Study line item. In this connection, we propose to amend the
agreement that we have with The Traffic Group, Inc. as follows:
a)
That we increase the Contract Sum by $5,131.95; and
b)
That the scope of services of the agreement be amended to include
consulting services for the purpose of assisting representatives of the Task Force
in evaluating and commenting on proposals being made by the staff of the Montgomery
County Planning Board to amend the Countys Master Plan of Highways and Transit
Ways to provide for a bus rapid transit network.
change.
Attached please find a revised grant budget reflecting the proposed

Thank you very much for your consideration.
Mark
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 11:41 AM

To:
Mark Winston
Cc:
Jonathan Genn; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Francine Waters; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: Transit
I'd love to hear Wes's ideas on what the Planning staff have planned. Last
Wednesday, heard Larry Cole's presentation at the Civic Center (as part of Green
Montgomery, or whatever the title was), and I thought he made a compelling case for
the 79 miles that his staff is recommending.
A conversation between Wes and Larry would be very enlightening & (as long as it
didn't break down into a show-down, but then I don't see Wes in that kind of mode
anyway), it could be a very interesting conversation....................
I
wonder if Casey would be interested in calling Wes in for a mini presentation,
perhaps NOT as part of the public hearing process..... (given that during public
comments he would be limited to the same amount of time as any other commenter).
Here's what I learned at last week's presentation by Larry --Feb 21, 2013/Tomorrow -- update/preview of the maswter plan (Larry's scheduled for
after lunch, here's the agenda link --)
Mar 18, 2013 -- public hearing DRAFT will be released
May (2 & or 9) -- public hearing
Late July -- Planning Board ransmits draft to County Council
Btw 2013-2040, we will see the following increases in Montgomery County:
21% incr in population
22% incr in VMT
70% incr in lane-miles of congestion
5% incr in lane miles built
Bottom Line -- we need more transit
Main corridors would be 355/Wisc., Georgia, NH, and Rt. 29/Colesville, and a
different routing of the North Bethesda Transitway [I may have omitted one....]
median bus lane accommodates 1600 people per peak hour in peak directions
curb bus lane accommodates 1000 people "
"
"
" "
Ended up with recommendation to basically "repuprose" existing lanes inside the
Beltway, but generally not outside the Beltway.
BRT Miles --- 152 miles were proposed by the RTV Task Force, and Planning Board
staff is recommending 79 miles of BRT
Staff has it divided into Phase 1 and Phase . Phase 1 & 2 have the same mileage
(79 miles recommended), however the treatment is enhanced in Phase 2
[Don't think I have the numbers quite right below, but you'll get the idea of how
the busway improves/is enhanced btw Phase 1 and 2] -Mixed Traffic ....
Curb Lanes
....
1-Lane Median ...
2-Lane Median ....
--- Tina
34 miles in Phase1, but only 10 miles in Phase2

4 miles in Phase 1, 5 miles in Phase 2?
20 miles in Phase 1, and 31 miles in Phase 2
19 miles in Phase 1, and 31 in Phase 2
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:53 PM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>

wrote:
02-19-13
I am advised that the Task Force has slightly more than $5,000 remaining in
its grant from The Rockefeller Foundation and I have been asked to make an
appropriate request of Ben de la Pena to extend the grant and authorize a specific
expenditure. A few weeks ago I learned that the transfer of these funds to the new
CFT grant is not possible.
In considering what to ask of the Foundation it has occurred to me that the

major thing in the pipeline at this time is the Planning staffs proposed approach
to the amendment of the Master Plan of Highways and Transit Ways. I propose that
we ask the Foundation to allow us to amend the agreement we had with The Traffic
Group to engage them to assist us in preparing our comments on the Planning staffs
approach and proposal. What do you think?
Mark

To:
De La Pena, Benjamin
Cc:
Street, Thomas; 'Michael Boone'
Subject:
Grant to Montgomery County Revenue Authority for benefit of Transit
Task Force
Attachments:
TTF Revised RF Grant Budget, Draft 2, 02-20-2013.docx
02-19-13
Ben: Good afternoon. I apologize for the delay in responding to your request for
follow-up on the above-referenced grant matter.
With respect to the expired grant and grant balance of $5,131.95 in

connection with the above-referenced grant, we request: (1) an extension in the
grant period through and including June 30, 2013; and (2) an authorization to amend
the grant budget by transferring the entire outstanding balance from contingency to
the Conceptual Design Study line item. In this connection, we propose to amend the
agreement that we have with The Traffic Group, Inc. as follows:
a)
That we increase the Contract Sum by $5,131.95; and
b)
That the scope of services of the agreement be amended to include
consulting services for the purpose of assisting representatives of the Task Force
in evaluating and commenting on proposals being made by the staff of the Montgomery
County Planning Board to amend the Countys Master Plan of Highways and Transit
Ways to provide for a bus rapid transit network.
change.
Attached please find a revised grant budget reflecting the proposed

Thank you very much for your consideration.
Mark

Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 9:29 AM
To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Transit
Attachments:
Comments on ITDP Memo to County Executive.doc
02-18-13
Tom: Good morning. This is something I wrote some time back after the ITDP
memorandum was referred to in an earlier Larry Cole memorandum on the status of his
MPOHT study. It needs some work but it may be a fair starting point. Mark

To:
Dan Wilhelm
Cc:
Francine Waters; Mark Winston; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: Washington Post
Dan -Re the Purple Line, who did you speak with. I know the "Save the Trail" folks in
B/CC had circulated a petition/e-mail to their members saying the PL is a waste of
money, but that they support public transit -- just not the PL. and that they
didn't want to pay more taxes.

Were you speaking to delegates of that part of the county or others?
-- Tina
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Dan Wilhelm <djwilhelm@verizon.net> wrote:
If one believes ITDP, then there should not be BRT service anywhere in the US
because the ridership will be too low. They fail to realize that some form of BRT
needs to be implemented in order to increase ridership. It is a chicken and egg
situation.
I was in Annapolis today. Two pieces of information.

1.
Residents are sending emails indicated that are against the purple
line too much money spent already, will increase development and therefore more
congestion, and against any increase in taxes. People are also say they want
congestion addressed but dont want to pay any more taxes.
2.
Based on the article in the Post this morning about legislation in
Virginia to increase the gasoline tax, OMalley is indicating he is going to push
something in Maryland this session.
Dan

To: Francine Waters
Cc: L. Mark Winston; Jonathan Genn; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas
Subject: Re: Washington Post
Yes, this was a very dour and disappointing report. And releasing it the day
before CSG's MoCo's Green Future mtg (tonight) was another downer. However, I was
surprised at how long it took for the report to "surface" in the press. And guess
it needs some talk-back, but the Wash Post comments section is frequented by
"trolls". Oh, to have an Executive Director at a time like this to handle
this...........
See you all tonight at the SS Civic Center?

http://www.smartergrowth.net/events/ I'll be there as soon as I push my art kids
out the door!
-- Tina
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Francine Waters <fwaters@lerner.com> wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/study-casts-doubt-on-bus-rapid-transitfor-montgomery-county/2013/02/11/732db024-7464-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_story.html?
wpisrc=emailtoafriend
FRANCINE E. WATERS
SENIOR MANAGING DIRECTOR | TRANSPORTATION & SMART GROWTH

Eighth Floor
301.692.2563 direct tel
301.692.2631 direct fax
Fwaters@Lerner.com
****ATTENTION****
This e-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended
exclusively for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the
intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, copying or other use of this e-mail and any attachments hereto is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender immediately by telephone and delete this e-mail and any attachments from
your system. Thank you.

To:
Mark Winston; Jonathan Genn; Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com); Dan Wilhelm
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Washington Post
Attachments:
image001.png
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/study-casts-doubt-on-bus-rapid-transit-formontgomery-county/2013/02/11/732db024-7464-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_story.html?
FRANCINE E. WATERS

Eighth Floor
301.692.2563 direct tel
301.692.2631 direct fax
Fwaters@Lerner.com <mailto:Fwaters@Lerner.com>
****ATTENTION****
To:
Francine Waters
Cc:
Mark Winston; Jonathan Genn; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: Washington Post
Yes, this was a very dour and disappointing report. And releasing it the day
before CSG's MoCo's Green Future mtg (tonight) was another downer. However, I was
surprised at how long it took for the report to "surface" in the press. And guess
it needs some talk-back, but the Wash Post comments section is frequented by
"trolls". Oh, to have an Executive Director at a time like this to handle
this...........
See you all tonight at the SS Civic Center? http://www.smartergrowth.net/events/
I'll be there as soon as I push my art kids out the door!
-- Tina
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Francine Waters <fwaters@lerner.com> wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/study-casts-doubt-on-bus-rapid-transitfor-montgomery-county/2013/02/11/732db024-7464-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_story.html?
FRANCINE E. WATERS

Eighth Floor
301.692.2563 direct tel
301.692.2631 direct fax
Fwaters@Lerner.com <mailto:Fwaters@Lerner.com>
****ATTENTION****

To:
Mark Winston; Street, Thomas; Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Dan
Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Dan Wilhelm; Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com);
Gus Bauman (gbauman@bdlaw.com); Casey Anderson
Subject:
FW: Senate Finance Committee Passes a New Transportation Bill
FYI, VA Gov. McDonnell didnt want to increase the gas tax (but instead increase in
the regressive VA sales tax). But the VA Senate Finance Committee seems more
progressive, voting to increase the gas tax by 5 cents, plus allow other revenue
sources (including enabling local jurisdictions to increase local sales tax).
MD is just stuck in the mud!
Jonathan
From: PNICOSON@aol.com [mailto:PNICOSON@aol.com]

To: dcra@dullescorridorrail.com
Subject: Fwd: Senate Finance Committee Passes a New Transportation Bill
DCRA Board and Members,
FYI.
Patty
Patricia Nicoson, President

Dulles Corridor Rail Association
11800 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite B
Reston, VA 20191
Phone: (703) 716-5750
Fax: (703) 716-5751
www.dullescorridorrail.com <http://www.dullescorridorrail.com/>
dcra@dullescorridorrail.com
________________________________
From: cdeschauer@fccc.org
To: cdeschauer@fccc.org
Sent: 2/12/2013 11:45:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Senate Finance Committee Passes a New Transportation Bill
Dear Policy Committee Member,
The Senate Finance Committee just passed a new transportation bill 9-6 (with
5 democrats and 4 republicans voting yes). This new bill:
indexes it.
Raises the current 17.5 cents per gallon gas tax 5 cents and
Implements a 1% statewide motor fuels tax at the wholesale level.

This money will go back to the region where its raised.
Includes the internet sales tax money. If Congress doesnt pass
the bill by 2014 the new statewide motor fuels tax goes up 2%.
Includes the $15 vehicle registration fee increase.
Increases the amount of General Fund money used for transportation

from .50 to .55.
MOST IMPORTANTLY: Gives localities the ability to increase the
local sales tax 1%. This money will be spent in the locality where it is raised
(roughly $145 million a year just for Fairfax).
Prohibits tolling (excluding HOT and HOV lanes) on interstates
without legislative approval.
This bill would raise (not including the local money) $728 million in 2014
and 1.02 billion a year by 2018. In local money the bill would raise an additional
$319 million per year in Nova in 2014 and $373 million per year by 2018.
The full senate is expected to vote on this tomorrow (it should pass with a
bi-partisan coalition) but we still have a long way to go to get a compromise
between the House and Senate. This is a good development though.
Also, weve received some good press on the Chambers advocacy efforts in the
past few days. See Virginias governor says hes prepared to cut a deal on
transportation <http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/virginias-governorsays-hes-prepared-to-cut-a-deal-on-transportation/2013/02/11/a0761296-749c-11e28f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html> and Interview With Fairfax Countys Chamber of
Commerce On Transportation Bill <http://thetysonscorner.com/interview-with-fairfaxcountys-chamber-of-commerce-on-transportation-bill/>
-Christian
Christian Deschauer
Vice President, Government Relations
Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce
Phone: 703-752-7544
Mobile: 703-232-9174
Email: cdeschauer@fairfaxchamber.org <mailto:cdeschauer@fairfaxchamber.org>
Follow us Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/fairfaxchamber
www.fairfaxchamber.org <http://www.fairfaxchamber.org/>
The Voice of Business in Northern Virginia

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Confidential Information - Not for Direct Distribution
02-11-13
Tom: I hope you are enjoying yourself and that you will not have the time or
inclination to pick up this email. However, if you do, I wanted you to be aware of
this exchange. Mark
________________________________
From: Gus B. Bauman [mailto:GBauman@bdlaw.com]
To: Wes Guckert; jonathan@percontee.com; Ayana@Percontee.com; Elmendorf, Stephen P.
- SPE; L. Mark Winston
Subject: RE: Confidential Information - Not for Direct Distribution
To summarize Wes cogent analysis---To place RTVs in mixed traffic means taking
the R out of RTV; we call those Metro and Ride On buses.
Gus
Gus B. Bauman
Of Counsel
Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.
1350 I Street, NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
T (202) 789-6013 ~ F (202) 789-6190
GBauman@bdlaw.com
www.bdlaw.com <http://www.bdlaw.com>
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This electronic message contains information from the

law firm of Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. and may be confidential or privileged. The
information is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies)
named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by telephone
at (202) 789-6000 or by e-mail reply and delete this message. Thank you.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

To: Jonathan Genn (jonathan@percontee.com); Ayana Lambert (Ayana@Percontee.com);
Gus B. Bauman; Elmendorf, Stephen P. - SPE; Mark Winston
(mwinston@glazerwinston.com)
Cc: Wes Guckert
Subject: Confidential Information - Not for Direct Distribution
It is beyond my comprehension how Government and their consultants can continually

do the same old thing over and over again. It truly is the definition of insanity.
1.
By having the Staff recommend a Phase I with RTVs in mixed traffic is
just plain dumb.
2.
Automobile drivers and passengers will be stuck in the same traffic as the
RTVs when they are in mixed traffic.
3.
The purpose of dedicated lanes and repurposed lanes is to be able to fill
those lanes with RTVs and fill the RTVs with former drivers and passengers.
Then, as the RTVs are whipping past the automobiles in the RTV dedicated lanes,
sooner or later --- through social engineering --- the passengers and the drivers
will start to realize that taking an RTV is going to be faster and cheaper than
taking an SOV or an automobile with one passenger.
4.
If the Staff and their consultants continue to insist that their computer
model of transit passengers is the only reliable system to decide when RTV lanes
should be built, they will never get built.
5.
As business people and entrepreneurs, we all know that risks need to be
taken and, in this particular case, the ultimate risk is to build dedicated lanes
in the median or repurpose lanes on the curb side to encourage transit use..
6.
What the Staff and their consultants are recommending is the death of the
possibility of an RTV system.
7.
Once you put RTVs in mixed traffic, there will be no incentive to take
transit.
8.
The County has a tremendous opportunity to advance a transit system like
none other in the country. Truthfully, the opportunity to build the Purple Line or
the Red Line at $150 million a mile is quickly diminishing, in my opinion. The RTV
alternative is real and possible if only the County Government and their
consultants had any amount of vision and entrepreneurship and are willing to think
outside the box.
9.
Before you know it, the Staff will be recommending use of existing WMATA
buses until there is enough ridership to warrant modern articulated RTVs and
Metro-like transit stations.
10. There is no creativity in the Staff Master Plan.

going off of US 29 and becoming a local bus system.
They continue to recommend
11.
Every time a new road is built, people complain because they say that it
encourages additional automobile traffic and discourages transit use. What the
Staff is doing is exactly the same thing with their idea of an RTV system that
discourages transit use once again. It will have the same effect as building a
multi-lane highway that creates additional automobile capacity and does not
encourage transit use.
12. We need to make the automobile driver jealous of the speed at which RTVs
can move through the system. Think of the signs that say if you lived here, you
would be home now or the sign that says take light rail or metro and get to work
faster.
Ladies and gentlemen, I know as a group we are doing the right thing and are going
in the right direction for all the reasons listed above. But, without leadership
and leaders with vision and courage, the RTV system is doomed in the hands of Staff
and their consultants. I only hope that there is at least a single voice out there
in the Planning Commission that can turn this thing around. Common sense says
that, if an RTV is moving twice as fast as an automobile stuck in traffic, we will
have more RTVs and more dedicated lanes.
Maybe there could be a Phase 1A where Government has the guts to build a medianbased dedicated RTV system, plus take a major road and repurpose the lanes for the
RTV system. In fact, both of those can occur in the US 29 corridor. It will take
guts by the Planning Commission and the State of Maryland and the County Council
and the County Executive to make that type of system work. The northern end of US
29 can be in the median and the southern end of US 29 can be in repurposed curb
lanes. It will take longer for autos to travel down US 29 but this type of
demonstration program is, what I believe, needed to advance the overall vision.
cid:image001.png@01CDE8DA.BC473430
Wes Guckert
President
Baltimore, MD 21236
T 410.931.6600
F 410.931.6601

To:
Holmes, Arthur
Cc:
Roshdieh, Al; Jonathan Genn; Jonathan Sachs; Erenrich, Gary
Subject:
Rapid Transit Steering Committee: Appointment of Successor to Jonathan
Genn
02-11-13
Dear Director Holmes: As you know, regrettably, Jonathan Genn has resigned as one
of the County Executives Transit Task Force representatives on the Rapid Transit
Steering Committee. Fortunately, however, I am able to designate Jonathan Sachs to
succeed Mr. Genn as a Task Force representative. I am confident that Mr. Sachs
will make a very positive contribution to the work of the Steering Committee.
Thank you very much. Mark

To:
'Dan Wilhelm'; 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: MPOHT
Attachments:
MPOHT 2 6 13.pdf
Trying again.
Sorry about that.
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston; 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; 'Wilhelm, Dan'; 'Jonathan
Genn'
Subject: RE: MPOHT
Mark
I didnt get the attachment. Could you send again?
Dan

To: 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; Dan Wilhelm; Wilhelm, Dan; 'Jonathan Genn'
Subject: MPOHT
All: Attached is a PDF of the material handed out at the meeting Roger convened
earlier in the week. The first page is a copy of the schedule for consideration of
the proposed amendments to the MPOHT, and also contains a breakdown of the mileage
of different treatments under the proposal. The second page is a graphic depiction
of 2040 projected ridership along the corridors in the proposal. The breadth of
shading reflects ridership volumes. The third page graphically depicts transitway
treatment of phase 1 under the proposal. The fourth page graphically depicts
transitway treatment of phase 2 under the proposal. As I understand it, phase 2
contains the same corridors as phase 1; however, treatment of the corridors has
matured based on land use plans formally adopted in the future. The balance of the
package is narrative. We should discuss after you have had an opportunity to
review. My basic questions are: (a) whether the Task Force should reconvene to
discuss taking a position when this is presented to Planning Board; and (b) if so,
whether our position should continue to reflect skepticism of ridership modeling
and advocate for more expansive network. Thanks. Mark

To:
'Dan Wilhelm'; 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: MPOHT
Attachments:
MPOHT 2 6 13.pdf
Trying again.
Sorry about that.
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston; 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; 'Wilhelm, Dan'; 'Jonathan
Genn'
Subject: RE: MPOHT
Mark
Dan

Subject: MPOHT

To:
Mark Winston; 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: MPOHT
Mark
Dan

Subject: MPOHT

To:
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: MPOHT
Mark
Dan

Subject: MPOHT

To:
'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
MPOHT


To:
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
MPOHT

To:
Mark Winston; Street, Thomas; Francine Waters; Tina Slater; Dan Wilhelm; Gus
Bauman; Wes Guckert
Cc:
Ayana Lambert
Subject:
Fwd: Meeting re P3 Bill with Business Leaders
Attachments:
doc20130131145036.pdf; ATT00001.htm
Dan:
Thanks for your comments on SB 830 tax bill. FYI, I have provided below the
summary of the P3 Bill that Anthony Brown is reintroducing this session. There is a
(by invitation only) work session on the bill next Tues AM, which I will be
attending. Perhaps Francine will be attending as well, as I recall Francine
participated in the work groups last session. I will keep you apprised of this
legislation. If any of you have any recommendations on how to improve this P3
legislation to benefit our RTV mission, please let me know.
Thanks.
Jonathan
and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Carol Burroughs" <CBurroughs@sos.state.md.us>

To: "Jonathan Genn" <Jonathan@Percontee.com>
Subject: RE: Meeting re P3 Bill with Business Leaders
Great! Enclosed is a summary of this years bill (HB 560 / SB 538), which
is available on the Maryland General Assembly Website.
Carol I. Burroughs
Executive Assistant
Office of the Secretary of State
16 Francis Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 260-3894
(410) 974-5527 (fax)
cburroughs@sos.state.md.us<mailto:cburroughs@sos.state.md.us>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:16 PM
To: Carol Burroughs
Subject: Re: Meeting re P3 Bill with Business Leaders
Dear Ms. Burroughs:
Please count me in for the Feb 12 8am meeting regarding the P3 Bill.
I will await until you hear back from others and confirm the date and time.
All my best.
Jonathan
and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Email: jonathan@percontee.com<mailto:jonathan@percontee.com>
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 31, 2013, at 2:53 PM, "Carol Burroughs"
<CBurroughs@sos.state.md.us<mailto:CBurroughs@sos.state.md.us>> wrote:
As you know we considered last year Public Private Partnership Legislation
(SB358/HB576). The Lt. Governor had may opportunities to meet and discuss this
Bill with you. He has asked me and his Chief of Staff, Maia Estes and Deputy Chief
of Staff, Benjamin Stutz to review with you this years Public Private Partnership
bill which is being submitted soon.
Enclosed is a summary of this years bill.
We should have an official copy of the bill sometime next week and will send it to
you. The Lt. Governor very much appreciates all the time and effort you put into
supporting the bill last Legislative Session and he wanted us to update you on this
years bill and our efforts to see it enacted this Session. The meeting will take
place on February 12, 2013 at 8:00 am here in our offices located at 16 Francis
Street, Annapolis, MD. Please RSVP to Carol Burroughs
(cburroughs@sos.state.md.us<mailto:cburroughs@sos.state.md.us>) and let her know
whether or not you can attend. If you cannot attend we will arrange another time
to meet. Thank you.
John P. McDonough
Secretary of State
16 Francis Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 260-3848
(410) 974-5527 (fax)
jmcdonough@sos.state.md.us<mailto:jmcdonough@sos.state.md.us>
<doc20130131145036.pdf>
To:
Mark Winston; Street, Thomas; Francine Waters; Tina Slater; Dan Wilhelm; Gus
Bauman; Wes Guckert
Cc:
Ayana Lambert
Subject:
Fwd: Meeting re P3 Bill with Business Leaders
Attachments:
doc20130131145036.pdf; ATT00001.htm
Dan:
Thanks for your comments on SB 830 tax bill.
FYI, I have provided below the
summary of the P3 Bill that Anthony Brown is reintroducing this session. There is a
(by invitation only) work session on the bill next Tues AM, which I will be
attending. Perhaps Francine will be attending as well, as I recall Francine
participated in the work groups last session. I will keep you apprised of this
legislation. If any of you have any recommendations on how to improve this P3
legislation to benefit our RTV mission, please let me know.
Thanks.
Jonathan
and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Carol Burroughs" <CBurroughs@sos.state.md.us>

To: "Jonathan Genn" <Jonathan@Percontee.com>
Subject: RE: Meeting re P3 Bill with Business Leaders
Great! Enclosed is a summary of this years bill (HB 560 / SB 538), which
is available on the Maryland General Assembly Website.
Carol I. Burroughs
Executive Assistant
Office of the Secretary of State
16 Francis Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 260-3894
(410) 974-5527 (fax)
cburroughs@sos.state.md.us<mailto:cburroughs@sos.state.md.us>
To: Carol Burroughs
Subject: Re: Meeting re P3 Bill with Business Leaders
Dear Ms. Burroughs:
Please count me in for the Feb 12 8am meeting regarding the P3 Bill.
I will await until you hear back from others and confirm the date and time.
All my best.
Jonathan
and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Email: jonathan@percontee.com<mailto:jonathan@percontee.com>
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 31, 2013, at 2:53 PM, "Carol Burroughs"
<CBurroughs@sos.state.md.us<mailto:CBurroughs@sos.state.md.us>> wrote:
As you know we considered last year Public Private Partnership Legislation
(SB358/HB576). The Lt. Governor had may opportunities to meet and discuss this
Bill with you. He has asked me and his Chief of Staff, Maia Estes and Deputy Chief
of Staff, Benjamin Stutz to review with you this years Public Private Partnership
bill which is being submitted soon.
Enclosed is a summary of this years bill.
We should have an official copy of the bill sometime next week and will send it to
you. The Lt. Governor very much appreciates all the time and effort you put into
supporting the bill last Legislative Session and he wanted us to update you on this
years bill and our efforts to see it enacted this Session. The meeting will take
place on February 12, 2013 at 8:00 am here in our offices located at 16 Francis
Street, Annapolis, MD. Please RSVP to Carol Burroughs
(cburroughs@sos.state.md.us<mailto:cburroughs@sos.state.md.us>) and let her know
whether or not you can attend. If you cannot attend we will arrange another time
to meet. Thank you.
John P. McDonough
Secretary of State
16 Francis Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 260-3848
(410) 974-5527 (fax)
jmcdonough@sos.state.md.us<mailto:jmcdonough@sos.state.md.us>
<doc20130131145036.pdf>
To:
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
State Bills
Senate Bill 830 was introduced on 2/1 but first appeared in the synopsis on 2/5. I
dont fully understand everything in this bill but:
1.
Provide a process for creating up to two Transit Benefit Districts: one
for the Baltimore Metro Region and one for the Washington Metro Region. The
districts can essentially do what the TTF suggested. This includes finance,
construct, operate, repair and maintain a transit facility and transit service. The
boundaries may consist of part of a county. The Transit Benefit District can raise
funds by imposing a property tax within its district. The District can also issue
bonds, notes or other evidence of obligation.
2.
Creates a County Motor Fuel Tax (starts on page 11) of up to 5 cents per
gallon (line 11 of page 14) that is imposed by a county and is distributed to the
County. After Jan 1, 2017, it appears (if I understand correctly) that the 5 cents
is imposed even if the county does impose it and the difference is put in the
Transportation Trust Fund.
Tom and Mark can correct me if my impression is not correct. There are two
components to the property tax: county and state. My impression is that the MC
restrictions on increasing the property tax apply only to the county component.
Since Transit Benefit District tax is part of the state component that the
restriction doesnt apply for this new tax.
To:
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
State Bills
Senate Bill 830 was introduced on 2/1 but first appeared in the synopsis on 2/5. I
dont fully understand everything in this bill but:
1.
Provide a process for creating up to two Transit Benefit Districts: one
for the Baltimore Metro Region and one for the Washington Metro Region. The
districts can essentially do what the TTF suggested. This includes finance,
construct, operate, repair and maintain a transit facility and transit service. The
boundaries may consist of part of a county. The Transit Benefit District can raise
funds by imposing a property tax within its district. The District can also issue
bonds, notes or other evidence of obligation.
2.
Creates a County Motor Fuel Tax (starts on page 11) of up to 5 cents per
gallon (line 11 of page 14) that is imposed by a county and is distributed to the
County. After Jan 1, 2017, it appears (if I understand correctly) that the 5 cents
is imposed even if the county does impose it and the difference is put in the
Transportation Trust Fund.
Tom and Mark can correct me if my impression is not correct. There are two
components to the property tax: county and state. My impression is that the MC
restrictions on increasing the property tax apply only to the county component.
Since Transit Benefit District tax is part of the state component that the
restriction doesnt apply for this new tax.
From: Darden, Caroline
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 10:41 AM
To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Call Detail Report 7-2559
Please review the following call detail report and send any reimbursement payment
for personal calls to Caroline Darden. Thank you.
Excel <http://mcg-a347/CAS/enu/Reports/
%09%09%09%09%09%09%09%09javascript:exportToExcel('ReportPage.aspx?
command=Excel&StartPosition=1&SortField=b7:b7:c3:c11&SortOrder=ascending:ascending:
ascending:ascending&runReportID=9071&ID=12794&Tab=&guid=cc7c4e9e-92de-41ba-a57389836829e5bd&pageInfo=19','id');%09%09%09%09%09%09%09>
Call Detail by Organization Report-A
MCGOV
Search Criteria <http://mcg-a347/CAS/enu/Reports/ReportPage.aspx?
command=Criteria&pageName=Criteria&ID=Criteria&runReportID=9071&guid=cc7c4e9e-92de41ba-a573-89836829e5bd&pageInfo=19>
Top Level of Report <http://mcg-a347/CAS/enu/Reports/ReportPage.aspx?
command=TopPage&pageName=OrgLevel2Summary&ID=&runReportID=9071&guid=cc7c4e9e-92de41ba-a573-89836829e5bd&pageInfo=19>
Previous Level of Report <http://mcg-a347/CAS/enu/Reports/ReportPage.aspx?
command=ParentPage&pageName=OrgLevel1Summary&ID=667&runReportID=9071&guid=cc7c4e9e92de-41ba-a573-89836829e5bd&pageInfo=19>
2/5/2013 6:00:12 AM
________________________________
Page 1 of 1
________________________________
Index Code Name: 001.15200.63600 Personnel Name: Street, Tom
Call Record Details
Start Date/Time <http://mcg-a347/CAS/enu/Reports/ReportPage.aspx?
command=SortPage&SortField=b7:b7:c3:c11&SortOrder=ascending:ascending:descending:as
cending&StartPosition=1&runReportID=9071&ID=12794&Tab=&guid=cc7c4e9e-92de-41baa573-89836829e5bd&pageInfo=19>
Sorted in ascending order <http://mcga347/CAS/enu/Reports/ReportPage.aspx?
Duration <http://mcg-a347/CAS/enu/Reports/ReportPage.aspx?
command=SortPage&SortField=b7:b7:c4:c11&SortOrder=ascending:ascending:ascending:asc
ending&StartPosition=1&runReportID=9071&ID=12794&Tab=&guid=cc7c4e9e-92de-41ba-a57389836829e5bd&pageInfo=19>
Dialed Number <http://mcg-a347/CAS/enu/Reports/ReportPage.aspx?
Call Destination <http://mcg-a347/CAS/enu/Reports/ReportPage.aspx?
Call Type <http://mcg-a347/CAS/enu/Reports/ReportPage.aspx?
Cost <http://mcg-a347/CAS/enu/Reports/ReportPage.aspx?
Extension Used <http://mcg-a347/CAS/enu/Reports/ReportPage.aspx?
command=SortPage&SortField=b7:b7:c10:c11&SortOrder=ascending:ascending:ascending:as
1/2/2013 10:04:36 AM
0:00:24
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/2/2013 1:28:18 PM
0:00:42
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/2/2013 4:09:00 PM
0:00:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/2/2013 4:33:30 PM
0:00:30
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/3/2013 3:00:00 PM
0:00:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/3/2013 3:51:00 PM
0:00:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/4/2013 10:36:00 AM
0:09:00
1-215-435-6326
PHIL CZ02A, PA
National
$0.17
72559
1/5/2013 12:29:12 PM
0:00:48
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/7/2013 10:32:36 AM
0:01:24
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/7/2013 10:57:24 AM
0:00:36
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/7/2013 1:38:00 PM
0:00:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/7/2013 4:16:48 PM
0:01:12
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/8/2013 9:24:00 AM
0:00:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/8/2013 1:44:24 PM
0:00:36
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/8/2013 5:29:00 PM
0:00:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/9/2013 10:06:36 AM
0:01:24
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/9/2013 11:43:12 AM
0:00:48
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/9/2013 11:47:30 AM
0:00:30
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/9/2013 2:12:24 PM
0:00:36
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/9/2013 5:59:30 PM
0:01:30
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/10/2013 9:54:36 AM
0:00:24
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/10/2013 11:46:00 AM
0:01:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/11/2013 8:37:54 AM
0:00:06
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/11/2013 6:32:06 PM
0:00:54
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/14/2013 9:35:12 AM
0:00:48
1-38011
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/14/2013 11:53:00 AM
0:00:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/14/2013 4:37:54 PM
0:01:06
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/15/2013 10:30:18 AM
0:00:42
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/15/2013 10:51:24 AM
0:00:36
1-215-593-3333
PHIL SZ33, PA
National
$0.02
72559
1/15/2013 11:11:00 AM
0:00:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/15/2013 1:12:00 PM
0:00:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/15/2013 4:12:00 PM
0:00:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/16/2013 10:46:00 AM
0:00:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/16/2013 4:38:24 PM
0:00:36
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/16/2013 4:59:00 PM
0:00:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/16/2013 5:41:30 PM
0:00:30
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/17/2013 10:29:06 AM
0:00:54
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/17/2013 12:45:54 PM
0:00:06
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/17/2013 12:49:54 PM
0:00:06
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/17/2013 12:50:24 PM
0:00:36
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/17/2013 12:50:48 PM
0:00:12
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/17/2013 2:56:12 PM
0:00:48
1-908-458-3521
SOMERVILLE, NJ
National
$0.02
72559
1/18/2013 10:44:48 AM
0:00:12
1-218-339-0503
CASS LAKE, MN
National
$0.01
72559
1/18/2013 10:45:36 AM
0:00:24
1-218-339-0503
CASS LAKE, MN
National
$0.02
72559
1/18/2013 10:49:54 AM
0:00:06
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/18/2013 2:10:00 PM
0:00:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/19/2013 10:41:48 AM
0:00:12
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/19/2013 7:52:00 PM
0:00:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/22/2013 2:14:42 PM
0:00:18
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/22/2013 2:31:00 PM
0:01:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/22/2013 4:16:48 PM
0:00:12
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/23/2013 10:59:36 AM
0:00:24
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/23/2013 11:49:54 AM
0:00:06
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/23/2013 11:52:48 AM
0:00:12
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/23/2013 12:20:18 PM
0:00:42
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/23/2013 12:36:54 PM
0:00:06
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/24/2013 7:26:24 AM
0:00:36
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/24/2013 2:58:36 PM
0:00:24
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/24/2013 6:10:48 PM
0:00:12
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/25/2013 9:04:00 AM
0:00:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/25/2013 11:22:06 AM
0:00:54
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/25/2013 11:28:24 AM
0:00:36
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/25/2013 2:02:54 PM
0:00:06
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/25/2013 3:04:18 PM
0:00:42
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/28/2013 9:51:36 AM
0:01:24
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/28/2013 12:45:42 PM
0:00:18
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/28/2013 3:17:30 PM
0:00:30
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/28/2013 3:31:00 PM
0:00:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/28/2013 5:27:00 PM
0:00:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/28/2013 6:16:48 PM
0:01:12
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/29/2013 8:29:36 AM
0:00:24
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/29/2013 8:51:36 AM
0:00:24
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/29/2013 11:49:00 AM
0:00:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/29/2013 11:59:30 AM
0:00:30
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/29/2013 12:49:48 PM
0:00:12
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/29/2013 12:55:00 PM
0:00:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/29/2013 3:12:36 PM
0:00:24
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/30/2013 12:08:48 PM
0:00:12
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/30/2013 12:54:00 PM
0:00:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/30/2013 1:54:00 PM
0:00:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/31/2013 9:29:54 AM
0:01:06
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/31/2013 12:35:00 PM
0:01:00
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
1/31/2013 6:36:48 PM
0:00:12
1-
Unknown
$0.00
72559
Total Duration
0:44:36
Total Call Cost (USD)
$0.24
________________________________
Page 1 of 1
________________________________
Start Date/Time <http://mcg-a347/CAS/enu/Reports/ReportPage.aspx?
Sorted in ascending order <http://mcga347/CAS/enu/Reports/ReportPage.aspx?
Duration <http://mcg-a347/CAS/enu/Reports/ReportPage.aspx?
Dialed Number <http://mcg-a347/CAS/enu/Reports/ReportPage.aspx?
Call Destination <http://mcg-a347/CAS/enu/Reports/ReportPage.aspx?
Call Type <http://mcg-a347/CAS/enu/Reports/ReportPage.aspx?
Cost <http://mcg-a347/CAS/enu/Reports/ReportPage.aspx?
Extension Used <http://mcg-a347/CAS/enu/Reports/ReportPage.aspx?
command=SortPage&SortField=b7:b7:c10:c11&SortOrder=ascending:ascending:ascending:as
Caroline Darden
Caroline Darden
Administrative Specialist I
101 Monroe Street, 2nd Floor
240-777-2585
caroline.darden@montgomerycountymd.gov

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Transit, the RTV system, and the Master Plan of Highways and
Transitways
02-05-13
Confidential
Tom: I had a chance to reflect on the meeting yesterday in the Councils offices.
As you know, I have been very concerned about the impact of the staffs work on the
MPOHT for some time. It is obvious that all of the transportation professionals,
although each in different ways, have relied heavily on ridership projections and
modeling in reaching their own conclusions and have disregarded our expressions of
concerns about ridership. It is also apparent to me that all senior officials and
policy-makers appear to share both that perspective and the conclusion that if an
RTV system is going to be built it will need to be developed incrementally. It may
be that, given the publics appetite (or lack thereof) for incurring capital and
operating costs of such a system, there is no alternative but to significantly
scale back on the scope of system for which we advocate. I have supported Ikes
approach to focus on the first phase and still do. The Planning Staffs
recommendations to the Planning Board scale back on the scope of Phase One even
more; however, there may be some aspects of what the staff is recommending about
the configuration guide ways within corridors that is positive. We need to analyze
that more carefully.
I have always thought that having a group or some individuals who advocate for more
kept up the pressure on planners and decision-makers to do as much as they thought
possible and that without that pressure they would do less, perhaps much less.
In any event, the question now arises: how to address what the staff is proposing?
Previously, our thought was for the Task Force to meet to consider what the staff
has proposed and to offer formal comments. Do you believe that is something we
should try to do? If so, is the goal to challenge some of the basic premises of
the work or simply to offer comments based on the assumptions implicit in the
Planning staffs proposal? Do you have any other thoughts about that?
By the way, I subscribe to the cricket theory. According to that theory, if you
hear crickets often and long enough you will no longer hear them. It may be that
we (or maybe simply, I) have become crickets about our concerns about modeling and
the Planning staffs proposals. While I have no hesitation to express contrarian
views, if I (or we) have become crickets it is a waste of time to do so and may
do our cause harm. We need to consider this carefully. This may be a crossroads
for the project from the standpoint of deciding the scope it will take.
Shifting gears to the ITDP memorandum, which has also reared its head in the
Planning staffs thinking, after the hearing Roger told me that he thought we
needed to prepare a response. That failing to do so allowed it to be used against
us with no response. He may be right. In any event, my concerns about the ITDP
memorandum reflects some of the same concerns we have with the Planning staffs
proposed approach to the MPOHT. We should also consider a potential response to
the ITDP memorandum in the same context as deciding how to approach the MPOHT.
Please call when you want to discuss this.
Thanks.
Mark

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Transit, the RTV system, and the Master Plan of Highways and
Transitways
02-05-13
Confidential
Tom: I had a chance to reflect on the meeting yesterday in the Councils offices.
As you know, I have been very concerned about the impact of the staffs work on the
MPOHT for some time. It is obvious that all of the transportation professionals,
although each in different ways, have relied heavily on ridership projections and
modeling in reaching their own conclusions and have disregarded our expressions of
concerns about ridership. It is also apparent to me that all senior officials and
policy-makers appear to share both that perspective and the conclusion that if an
RTV system is going to be built it will need to be developed incrementally. It may
be that, given the publics appetite (or lack thereof) for incurring capital and
operating costs of such a system, there is no alternative but to significantly
scale back on the scope of system for which we advocate. I have supported Ikes
approach to focus on the first phase and still do. The Planning Staffs
recommendations to the Planning Board scale back on the scope of Phase One even
more; however, there may be some aspects of what the staff is recommending about
the configuration guide ways within corridors that is positive. We need to analyze
that more carefully.
I have always thought that having a group or some individuals who advocate for more
kept up the pressure on planners and decision-makers to do as much as they thought
possible and that without that pressure they would do less, perhaps much less.
In any event, the question now arises: how to address what the staff is proposing?
Previously, our thought was for the Task Force to meet to consider what the staff
has proposed and to offer formal comments. Do you believe that is something we
should try to do? If so, is the goal to challenge some of the basic premises of
the work or simply to offer comments based on the assumptions implicit in the
Planning staffs proposal? Do you have any other thoughts about that?
By the way, I subscribe to the cricket theory. According to that theory, if you
hear crickets often and long enough you will no longer hear them. It may be that
we (or maybe simply, I) have become crickets about our concerns about modeling and
the Planning staffs proposals. While I have no hesitation to express contrarian
views, if I (or we) have become crickets it is a waste of time to do so and may
do our cause harm. We need to consider this carefully. This may be a crossroads
for the project from the standpoint of deciding the scope it will take.
Shifting gears to the ITDP memorandum, which has also reared its head in the
Planning staffs thinking, after the hearing Roger told me that he thought we
needed to prepare a response. That failing to do so allowed it to be used against
us with no response. He may be right. In any event, my concerns about the ITDP
memorandum reflects some of the same concerns we have with the Planning staffs
proposed approach to the MPOHT. We should also consider a potential response to
the ITDP memorandum in the same context as deciding how to approach the MPOHT.
Please call when you want to discuss this.
Mark
Thanks.
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 3:28 PM

To:
Mark Winston
Cc:
Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: FW: Communities for Transit, Inc - Executive Director Interview
Mark et al -I think she raises lots of important points. However, I could be off base (it did
happen once or twice before ) BUT, I would expect that the Executive Director would
help organize forces for getting resolutions to these very topics --- whether by
advising the board to do so, or by organizing citizens to lean on elected officials
(maybe c3 status corps cannot do this....don't know). But I think she understands
the game plan --- it's just that I would hope that she would want to "ride that
horse" and see it to completion (mixing metaphors, I know...)
And, I'm curious whether we've approached David Moon. I think he's a person who
understands these things and would have the capacity and know-how to organize
things to a good conclusion. (just thinking out loud at my keyboard)
--- Tina
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:38 PM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com> wrote:
To All: Please see note from Ms. Gross-Glazer below. I have no comment and
will not be making a response. It looks like we will have only one interview
tomorrow night although I have heard nothing from Charlie Scott confirming his
attendance. Thanks. Mark
________________________________
From: Sheryl Gross-Glaser [mailto:sherylgglaser@yahoo.com]
To: L. Mark Winston
Subject: Re: Communities for Transit, Inc - Executive Director Interview
Dear Mr. Winston,

Thank you for the invitation to interview for the position of executive
director position. I have decided to decline the interview because of some problems
I think need to be resolved with the plan of this new organization. As a Montgomery
County resident, I am wholly in favor of a robust public transit system, whether
rail or bus based. I am concerned that the bus rapid transit system as proposed
will become watered down. I am also concerned that the significant differences
between the cities that have functioning BRT systems in the U.S. and Montgomery
County not be overlooked. In my opinion, the RTV proposed in the task force's
report hinges on a rail-like frequency, reliability and speed. Those parts of
Montgomery County and the DC area with high percentages of transit riders are the
areas close to Metro. That model must be replicated or people will not shift modes.
Your board represents a cross section of interested individuals and interests
working to improve transit in Montgomery County. However, although there is a great
deal of planning expertise in the task force report, it seems to lack the input of
residents. The task force should be a first step, not a final package. Rather than
selling a plan, residents should be part of the plan as it is being developed.
Engagement using social media and involving neighborhood groups, schools, WMATA,
and county aging organizations is crucial. We also cannot sell transit unless we at
the same time work to make our streets more walkable and safe for pedestrians.
There are too many places in our county where roads are designed for traffic flow
and pedestrians are told to walk blocks out of the way to cross a street to get to
a bus stop, a bus stop that then does not have real-time information, attractive
seating, a shelter, or clear, easy, route and system maps. If RTV is going to be
rail-like, then rail-quality amenities, information, maps and instant messaging
through twitter, texts and email must be part of the package. Likewise, if people
feel unsafe crossing a street, they will not cross for a bus stop, even a nice one.
I am also concerned that as yet the Montgomery County DOT and the State
Highway Administration are not involved in generating a plan. For the RTV or a
similar plan to come to fruition requires strong partnerships with these and other
entities, public and private.
I do not believe a large staff is required. Innovation, engagement and
partnerships are critical. I think we will have better outcomes if you and the
board of Communities for Transit consider these issues even before you hire an
executive director.
Sincerely,
Sheryl Gross-Glaser
________________________________
From: L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>
To: 'Sheryl Gross-Glaser' <sherylgglaser@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, February 1, 2013 2:56 PM
Subject: Communities for Transit, Inc - Executive Director Interview
02-01-13
Ms. Gross-Glaser:
The Executive Committee of Communities for Transit, Inc.

(CFT) is pleased to invite you to an interview for the position of Executive
Director of CFT. Your interview is scheduled for 8:10pm on Tuesday, February 5,
2013. The meeting will be held in the offices of Lerner Enterprises, at 2000 Tower
Oaks Boulevard , Seventh Floor, Rockville , Maryland 20852 . Please call Francine
Waters at 301-692-2563 to receive parking instructions.
CFT is a Maryland non-profit corporation with a pending

application for designation as a Section 501 (c)(3) charitable organization. As
you know, the purpose of such an organization is to perform educational, research
and community outreach activities. It is not an advocacy group.
The position of Executive Director is described in the

position description that you have seen previously. We anticipate that it will be
a full-time position. While CFT only has funding in place for the first year of
its anticipated life, we expect that the duration of the appointment to the
position will be for two or three years.
We are interested in your specific thoughts on how CFT may

accomplish its mission of educating the public about transit in general and the RTV
network described in the Montgomery County Executives Transit Task Force report
(available at http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Apps/cex/transit/meeting.asp) in
particular. To ensure that our time together during the interview is productive,
this note will state some of the questions that we will ask and the topics we want
to cover. This will give you an opportunity to consider these things before the
interview.
On a general level, while knowledge of transportation is

important, what is vital is that CFT find an Executive Director who is a selfstarter; someone able to communicate with small and large groups of various types;
be organized and able to work with volunteer leadership; able to manage a very
small staff and potential group of part-time interns and consultants; and be able
to organize and implement an educational and community outreach program.
To that end, we are interested in:
1.
What educational efforts have you
led in the past?
2.
Have you worked for non-profit
organizations, and/or started-up a non-profit? Have you ever opened an office?
3.
outreach efforts in Montgomery County ?
How would you approach community
4.
If you had $150,000 available to
implement an education and outreach program for the next year, how would you
propose to spend it? Same question, if we were to have $250,000 available. Same
question, if we were to have $400,000 available.
the project in 6, 12 and 18 months?
5.
Where would you see the status of
What would be your benchmarks?
6.
Depending on several variables,
including how much additional funding we can raise, it is very possible that the
budget will only allow you to hire a single administrative person? Does this
affect your interest in the position and how would you propose to use the talents
of such a person?
7.
What do you envision as the nature
of the relationship the Executive Director would have with the board of directors
and executive committee of CFT? What do you expect from board members?
In addition, by way of background, we believe our education

program needs to address the following and other subjects:
A.
confront Montgomery County and the region?
What transportation-related issues
B.
What alternative solutions are
available and what are the pros and cons of each?
C.
Assuming that development of transit
is the best answer and, more particularly, the approach outlined in the Transit
Task Forces report, what are the most important characteristics of a successful
system and what are the greatest challenges presented to implementing that system?
D.
What benefits will accrue from
implementing a network?
E.
we fail to implement such a network?
What opportunities will be lost if
F.
To what extent may traffic
congestion and environmental quality problems, and economic development needs, be
addressed by the development of new road projects or changes in the use of our
existing road systems?
G.
How can CFT best present what a real
network will look like and how it will feel? This relates to vehicles, stations
and guide ways.
Thanks for taking the time to meet with us.
We look
forward to it.
for Transit, Inc.
Communities
By:
The
Executive Committee
Tina Slater
Francine Waters
Jonathan Genn
Dan Wilhelm
Mark Winston

To:
Mark Winston
Cc:
Subject:
Re: FW: Communities for Transit, Inc - Executive Director Interview
Mark et al -I think she raises lots of important points. However, I could be off base (it did
happen once or twice before ) BUT, I would expect that the Executive Director would
help organize forces for getting resolutions to these very topics --- whether by
advising the board to do so, or by organizing citizens to lean on elected officials
(maybe c3 status corps cannot do this....don't know). But I think she understands
the game plan --- it's just that I would hope that she would want to "ride that
horse" and see it to completion (mixing metaphors, I know...)
And, I'm curious whether we've approached David Moon. I think he's a person who
understands these things and would have the capacity and know-how to organize
things to a good conclusion. (just thinking out loud at my keyboard)
--- Tina
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:38 PM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com> wrote:
To All: Please see note from Ms. Gross-Glazer below. I have no comment and
will not be making a response. It looks like we will have only one interview
tomorrow night although I have heard nothing from Charlie Scott confirming his
attendance. Thanks. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Dear Mr. Winston,

Thank you for the invitation to interview for the position of executive
director position. I have decided to decline the interview because of some problems
I think need to be resolved with the plan of this new organization. As a Montgomery
County resident, I am wholly in favor of a robust public transit system, whether
rail or bus based. I am concerned that the bus rapid transit system as proposed
will become watered down. I am also concerned that the significant differences
between the cities that have functioning BRT systems in the U.S. and Montgomery
County not be overlooked. In my opinion, the RTV proposed in the task force's
report hinges on a rail-like frequency, reliability and speed. Those parts of
Montgomery County and the DC area with high percentages of transit riders are the
areas close to Metro. That model must be replicated or people will not shift modes.
I am also concerned that as yet the Montgomery County DOT and the State
Highway Administration are not involved in generating a plan. For the RTV or a
similar plan to come to fruition requires strong partnerships with these and other
entities, public and private.
I do not believe a large staff is required. Innovation, engagement and
partnerships are critical. I think we will have better outcomes if you and the
board of Communities for Transit consider these issues even before you hire an
executive director.
Sincerely,
Sheryl Gross-Glaser
________________________________
02-01-13
Ms. Gross-Glaser:
The Executive Committee of Communities for Transit, Inc.

(CFT) is pleased to invite you to an interview for the position of Executive
Director of CFT. Your interview is scheduled for 8:10pm on Tuesday, February 5,
2013. The meeting will be held in the offices of Lerner Enterprises, at 2000 Tower
Oaks Boulevard , Seventh Floor, Rockville , Maryland 20852 . Please call Francine

The position of Executive Director is described in the

position description that you have seen previously. We anticipate that it will be
a full-time position. While CFT only has funding in place for the first year of
its anticipated life, we expect that the duration of the appointment to the
position will be for two or three years.

interview.

1.
What educational efforts have you
led in the past?
2.
3.
outreach efforts in Montgomery County ?
How would you approach community
4.
If you had $150,000 available to
implement an education and outreach program for the next year, how would you
propose to spend it? Same question, if we were to have $250,000 available. Same
question, if we were to have $400,000 available.
the project in 6, 12 and 18 months?
5.
Where would you see the status of
6.
Depending on several variables,
including how much additional funding we can raise, it is very possible that the
budget will only allow you to hire a single administrative person? Does this
affect your interest in the position and how would you propose to use the talents
of such a person?
7.
What do you envision as the nature
of the relationship the Executive Director would have with the board of directors
and executive committee of CFT? What do you expect from board members?

A.
confront Montgomery County and the region?
What transportation-related issues
B.
What alternative solutions are
available and what are the pros and cons of each?
C.
Assuming that development of transit
is the best answer and, more particularly, the approach outlined in the Transit
Task Forces report, what are the most important characteristics of a successful
system and what are the greatest challenges presented to implementing that system?
D.
What benefits will accrue from
implementing a network?
E.
we fail to implement such a network?
What opportunities will be lost if
F.
To what extent may traffic
congestion and environmental quality problems, and economic development needs, be
addressed by the development of new road projects or changes in the use of our
existing road systems?
G.
and guide ways.
We look
forward to it.
for Transit, Inc.
Communities
By:
The
Executive Committee
Tina Slater
Francine Waters
Jonathan Genn
Dan Wilhelm
Mark Winston

To:
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: Communities for Transit, Inc - Executive Director Interview
Mark
I just wanted to remind you that I have another commitment for tomorrow night. I
think others on the team can adequately address the our needs. I will support your
decision.
I agree with Sheryl that the public will want a lot of information that have not
been developed yet. The danger is setting incorrect impressions that will come back
to bit us like what I think happened on US29 almost 20 years ago.
Dan

To: 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; Dan Wilhelm; Wilhelm, Dan; Jonathan Genn
Subject: FW: Communities for Transit, Inc - Executive Director Interview
To All: Please see note from Ms. Gross-Glazer below. I have no comment and will
not be making a response. It looks like we will have only one interview tomorrow
night although I have heard nothing from Charlie Scott confirming his attendance.
Thanks. Mark
_____
To: L. Mark Winston
Dear Mr. Winston,

Thank you for the invitation to interview for the position of executive director
position. I have decided to decline the interview because of some problems I think
need to be resolved with the plan of this new organization. As a Montgomery County
resident, I am wholly in favor of a robust public transit system, whether rail or
bus based. I am concerned that the bus rapid transit system as proposed will become
watered down. I am also concerned that the significant differences between the
cities that have functioning BRT systems in the U.S. and Montgomery County not be
overlooked. In my opinion, the RTV proposed in the task force's report hinges on a
rail-like frequency, reliability and speed. Those parts of Montgomery County and
the DC area with high percentages of transit riders are the areas close to Metro.
That model must be replicated or people will not shift modes.
I am also concerned that as yet the Montgomery County DOT and the State Highway
Administration are not involved in generating a plan. For the RTV or a similar plan
to come to fruition requires strong partnerships with these and other entities,
public and private.
I do not believe a large staff is required. Innovation, engagement and partnerships
are critical. I think we will have better outcomes if you and the board of
Communities for Transit consider these issues even before you hire an executive
director.
Sincerely,
Sheryl Gross-Glaser
_____
02-01-13
Ms. Gross-Glaser:
The Executive Committee of Communities for Transit, Inc. (CFT) is

pleased to invite you to an interview for the position of Executive Director of
CFT. Your interview is scheduled for 8:10pm on Tuesday, February 5, 2013. The
meeting will be held in the offices of Lerner Enterprises, at 2000 Tower Oaks
Boulevard , Seventh Floor, Rockville , Maryland 20852 . Please call Francine
CFT is a Maryland non-profit corporation with a pending application for

designation as a Section 501 (c)(3) charitable organization. As you know, the
purpose of such an organization is to perform educational, research and community
outreach activities. It is not an advocacy group.
The position of Executive Director is described in the position

description that you have seen previously. We anticipate that it will be a fulltime position. While CFT only has funding in place for the first year of its
anticipated life, we expect that the duration of the appointment to the position
will be for two or three years.
We are interested in your specific thoughts on how CFT may accomplish

its mission of educating the public about transit in general and the RTV network
described in the Montgomery County Executives Transit Task Force report (available
at http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Apps/cex/transit/meeting.asp) in particular.
To ensure that our time together during the interview is productive, this note will
state some of the questions that we will ask and the topics we want to cover. This
will give you an opportunity to consider these things before the interview.
On a general level, while knowledge of transportation is important,

what is vital is that CFT find an Executive Director who is a self-starter; someone
able to communicate with small and large groups of various types; be organized and
able to work with volunteer leadership; able to manage a very small staff and
potential group of part-time interns and consultants; and be able to organize and
implement an educational and community outreach program.
past?
1.
2.
and/or started-up a non-profit?
3.
efforts in Montgomery County ?
What educational efforts have you led in the
Have you worked for non-profit organizations,

Have you ever opened an office?
How would you approach community outreach
4.
If you had $150,000 available to implement an
education and outreach program for the next year, how would you propose to spend
it? Same question, if we were to have $250,000 available. Same question, if we
were to have $400,000 available.
6, 12 and 18 months?
5.
Where would you see the status of the project in
6.
Depending on several variables, including how
much additional funding we can raise, it is very possible that the budget will only
allow you to hire a single administrative person? Does this affect your interest
in the position and how would you propose to use the talents of such a person?
7.
What do you envision as the nature of the
relationship the Executive Director would have with the board of directors and
executive committee of CFT? What do you expect from board members?
In addition, by way of background, we believe our education program

needs to address the following and other subjects:
A.
What transportation-related issues confront
Montgomery County and the region?
B.
What alternative solutions are available and
what are the pros and cons of each?
C.
Assuming that development of transit is the best
answer and, more particularly, the approach outlined in the Transit Task Forces
report, what are the most important characteristics of a successful system and what
are the greatest challenges presented to implementing that system?
D.
What benefits will accrue from implementing a
network?
E.
implement such a network?
What opportunities will be lost if we fail to
F.
To what extent may traffic congestion and
environmental quality problems, and economic development needs, be addressed by the
development of new road projects or changes in the use of our existing road
systems?
G.
How can CFT best present what a real network
will look like and how it will feel?

guide ways.
This relates to vehicles, stations and
We look forward to it.
Communities for
Transit, Inc.
Committee
By:
The Executive
Tina Slater
Francine
Waters
Genn
Jonathan
Dan Wilhelm
Mark
Winston

To:
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: Communities for Transit, Inc - Executive Director Interview
Mark
I just wanted to remind you that I have another commitment for tomorrow night. I
think others on the team can adequately address the our needs. I will support your
decision.
I agree with Sheryl that the public will want a lot of information that have not
been developed yet. The danger is setting incorrect impressions that will come back
to bit us like what I think happened on US29 almost 20 years ago.
Dan

To: 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; Dan Wilhelm; Wilhelm, Dan; Jonathan Genn
Subject: FW: Communities for Transit, Inc - Executive Director Interview
Thanks. Mark
_____
To: L. Mark Winston
Dear Mr. Winston,

public and private.
director.
Sincerely,
Sheryl Gross-Glaser
_____
02-01-13
Ms. Gross-Glaser:


designation as a Section 501 (c)(3) charitable organization. As you know, the


past?
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.
6.
7.

A.
B.
C.
D.
network?
E.
F.
systems?
G.
will look like and how it will feel? This relates to vehicles, stations and
guide ways.
Communities for
Transit, Inc.
Committee
By:
The Executive
Tina Slater
Francine
Waters
Genn
Jonathan
Dan Wilhelm
Mark
Winston

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Meeting Today
02-04-13
Tom: Will I be seeing you at todays meeting in the Council Office Building re the
MPOH? Mark

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Meeting Today
02-04-13
Tom: Will I be seeing you at todays meeting in the Council Office Building re the
MPOH? Mark

To:
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Communities for Transit, Inc - Executive Director Interview
Thanks. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Dear Mr. Winston,

public and private.
director.
Sincerely,
Sheryl Gross-Glaser
________________________________
02-01-13
Ms. Gross-Glaser:
The Executive Committee of Communities for Transit, Inc. (CFT)

is pleased to invite you to an interview for the position of Executive Director of



interview.

1.
What educational efforts have you led in
the past?
2.
3.
4.
If you had $150,000 available to implement
an education and outreach program for the next year, how would you propose to spend
5.
Where would you see the status of the
project in 6, 12 and 18 months? What would be your benchmarks?
6.
Depending on several variables, including
how much additional funding we can raise, it is very possible that the budget will
only allow you to hire a single administrative person? Does this affect your
interest in the position and how would you propose to use the talents of such a
person?
7.

A.
B.
What alternative solutions are available
and what are the pros and cons of each?
C.
Assuming that development of transit is
the best answer and, more particularly, the approach outlined in the Transit Task
Forces report, what are the most important characteristics of a successful system
and what are the greatest challenges presented to implementing that system?
D.
What benefits will accrue from implementing
E.
What opportunities will be lost if we fail
a network?
to implement such a network?
F.
systems?
G.
and guide ways.
We look forward to
it.
Transit, Inc.
Communities for
By:
The
Executive Committee
Slater
Tina
Francine Waters
Jonathan Genn
Dan
Wilhelm
Winston
Mark

To:
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Communities for Transit, Inc - Executive Director Interview
Thanks. Mark
________________________________

To: L. Mark Winston
Dear Mr. Winston,

public and private.
director.
Sincerely,
Sheryl Gross-Glaser
________________________________

02-01-13
Ms. Gross-Glaser:
The Executive Committee of Communities for Transit, Inc. (CFT)

is pleased to invite you to an interview for the position of Executive Director of



interview.

the past?
1.
What educational efforts have you led in
2.
3.
4.
If you had $150,000 available to implement
an education and outreach program for the next year, how would you propose to spend
5.
Where would you see the status of the
project in 6, 12 and 18 months? What would be your benchmarks?
6.
Depending on several variables, including
how much additional funding we can raise, it is very possible that the budget will
only allow you to hire a single administrative person? Does this affect your
interest in the position and how would you propose to use the talents of such a
person?
7.

A.
B.
What alternative solutions are available
and what are the pros and cons of each?
C.
Assuming that development of transit is
the best answer and, more particularly, the approach outlined in the Transit Task
Forces report, what are the most important characteristics of a successful system
and what are the greatest challenges presented to implementing that system?
a network?
D.
What benefits will accrue from implementing
E.
What opportunities will be lost if we fail
to implement such a network?
F.
systems?
G.
and guide ways.
We look forward to
it.
Transit, Inc.
Communities for
By:
The
Executive Committee
Slater
Tina
Francine Waters
Jonathan Genn
Dan
Wilhelm
Mark
Winston

To:
Street, Thomas; Jonathan Sachs
Subject:
RE: Steering Committee Documents
Jonathan: To look at the specific relevant provision of the County Code (as
opposed to the regulations promulgated under the Code), please go to the code site,
click on the County Code, Click on Part II (Local laws, ordinances and
regulations), go to Chapter 19A, and go to Section 19A-4. You will find a
definition of public employee consistent with the notes that Tom just sent you.
Also, this section lays out the conflict standard. Mark
________________________________
To: Jonathan Sachs
Cc: L. Mark Winston
Subject: RE: Steering Committee Documents
Jonathan
See the attached.
Tom
From: Jonathan Sachs [mailto:jsachs@mcccmd.com]

To: Street, Thomas
Cc: Mark Winston; Street, Thomas
Subject: Re: Steering Committee Documents
Tom,
I don't see it there. Perhaps it is there if you have a log-in?

Jonathan
Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 1, 2013, at 1:48 PM, "Street, Thomas" <Tom.Street@montgomerycountymd.gov>
wrote:
They are on the website under documents
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 1, 2013, at 1:27 PM, "Jonathan Sachs" <jsachs@mcccmd.com> wrote:
Mark and Tom,
Thanks for the call this morning. I talked it over with Gigi and she
asked if she could see the ethics documents related to participating on the
committee, just so we can have our counsel review to make sure we dont have
similar conflict of interest issues.
Thanks!
Jonathan
Jonathan Sachs
Director of Public Affairs
Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce
51 Monroe Street, Suite 1800
Rockville, MD
Ph:
20850
301.738.0015 ext. 205; Fax: 301.738.8792
Email: jsachs@mcccmd.com
<image001.png> <http://www.mcccmd.com/>
<image002.png>
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Montgomery-County-Chamber-of-CommerceMd/239377858769>
<image003.png> <http://www.youtube.com/user/MCCCVideos>
<image004.png> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/ekizial/>
<image005.png>
<http://twitter.com/#!/MCCCMD>
Upcoming Chamber Events:
MCCC Legislative Reception Monday, February 4, 2013
MCCC Public Safety Awards Luncheon Friday, March 15, 2013
MCCC 54th Annual Dinner Tuesday, June 11, 2013
The Chamber is a 501(c)(6) and the Foundation is a 501(c)(3). Both are

independent organizations
and are not affiliated with any national, state, local chamber or other
organization.
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
<image006.png>

To:
Street, Thomas; Jonathan Sachs
Subject:
Jonathan: To look at the specific relevant provision of the County Code (as
opposed to the regulations promulgated under the Code), please go to the code site,
click on the County Code, Click on Part II (Local laws, ordinances and
regulations), go to Chapter 19A, and go to Section 19A-4. You will find a
definition of public employee consistent with the notes that Tom just sent you.
Also, this section lays out the conflict standard. Mark
________________________________
To: Jonathan Sachs
Cc: L. Mark Winston
Subject: RE: Steering Committee Documents
Jonathan
See the attached.
Tom

To: Street, Thomas
Cc: Mark Winston; Street, Thomas
Tom,

Jonathan
Sent from my iPhone

wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
Mark and Tom,
Thanks!
Jonathan
Jonathan Sachs

Rockville, MD
Ph:
20850
301.738.0015 ext. 205; Fax: 301.738.8792
<image002.png>
<image005.png>

organization.
<image006.png>

Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:29 PM
To:
Orlin, Glenn; Farber, Steve; Ann Marimow; Lynn and Bernie Kapolott ; Hyslop,
Margie; Spivack, Miranda (Washington Post Reporter); Parcher, Amber; Holmes,
Street, Thomas; Citizen, Upcounty; Amy Presley; Casey Anderson; Francoise Carrier ;
Leslie Saville; Bill Barron ; Callum Murray; Glenn Kreger ; John Carter ; Khalid
Afzal; Kristin O'Connor; Mary Bradford ; Nancy Sturgeon; Rob Gibbs
Subject:
FW: MCCF Newsletter
Attachments:
Feb 13 Newsletter.pdf
Feb newsletter attached.

Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:29 PM
To:
Orlin, Glenn; Farber, Steve; Ann Marimow; Lynn and Bernie Kapolott ; Hyslop,
Margie; Spivack, Miranda (Washington Post Reporter); Parcher, Amber; Holmes,
Street, Thomas; Citizen, Upcounty; Amy Presley; Casey Anderson; Francoise Carrier ;
Leslie Saville; Bill Barron ; Callum Murray; Glenn Kreger ; John Carter ; Khalid
Afzal; Kristin O'Connor; Mary Bradford ; Nancy Sturgeon; Rob Gibbs
Subject:
FW: MCCF Newsletter
Attachments:
Feb 13 Newsletter.pdf
Feb newsletter attached.
To:
'Kelly Blynn'; Dan Wilhelm
Cc:
Mark Winston; 'Tina Slater'; 'fwaters@Lerner.com'; Jonathan Genn; Street,
Thomas
Subject:
RE: US29 Busway study
Blynn
As I recall things from 18 years ago (and I was not heavily involved), let me send
them on.
I think the community had already made up its mind before the report came out based
upon the public meetings. I recall the message in the report was much better than
what the public meetings had lead the public to believe. The two major concerns I
recall were
1.
Based upon the public meetings, the impression was that there would not be
any left turns the entire length of US29 from New Hampshire to University. (a
distance of 2 miles and maybe as much as 10 minutes)
2.
They were going to need to take property between Lockwood and University,
when many people recall the bad taste the taking caused when US29 was widened.
The third impression (to a lesser extent than the other two) was that it would make
traffic worse on US29 and cause more cut-through traffic in residential areas. US29
between White Oak and University Blvd has probably the worst traffic congestion in
the county. It has had at least a 2 mile backup for probably three decade (and
there are no alternatives). It is not uncommon to backup to Randolph (4 miles) and
my guess is that there have been times when it is 15+ miles (well into Columbia).
The council had already had such an ear full by 1996 that they gave up. The Council
had been beat up by Community since 1981 (15 years already) when the Council put
massive development in the Eastern Montgomery County Master Plan. There was some
downzoning in 1989 and the 1997 master plan reduced things some more. The problem
is that so much land was developed in the mid 80s that the damage had been done.
The 1981 master plan was based upon transit serviceability, which never came about
(even to this day). The Council did what ITDP recommended in the recent report in
terms of adding massive development. The development that occurred was lots of low
income, single parent housing. This part of the county still has a lot of problems
as a result. We have the worse crime in the county as well as bad congestion,
especially on US29 south of NH.
Dan

To: Wilhelm, Dan
Cc: L. Mark Winston; Tina Slater; fwaters@Lerner.com; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn;
Street, Thomas
Subject: Re: US29 Busway study
Wow, fascinating, seems we've come full circle. Maybe a longer story for another
time, but what killed the plan, did the council vote it down, was there immense
community opposition? It seems like from this report they had already done a fair
amount of planning.
Thanks for sending, Dan!
Kelly Blynn
o: (202) 675-0016 ext. 127 | c: (610) 220-5378
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Wilhelm, Dan <dwilhelm@mitre.org> wrote:
All
I tried again on the Busway study report. This time I found a condense pdf setting
on the machine not sure what it would do. I also copied the it in multiple
documents in case I needed to send each in its own email.
Dan

To:
'Kelly Blynn'; Dan Wilhelm
Cc:
Mark Winston; 'Tina Slater'; 'fwaters@Lerner.com'; Jonathan Genn; Street,
Thomas
Subject:
RE: US29 Busway study
Blynn
As I recall things from 18 years ago (and I was not heavily involved), let me send
them on.
I think the community had already made up its mind before the report came out based
upon the public meetings. I recall the message in the report was much better than
what the public meetings had lead the public to believe. The two major concerns I
recall were
1.
Based upon the public meetings, the impression was that there would not be
any left turns the entire length of US29 from New Hampshire to University. (a
distance of 2 miles and maybe as much as 10 minutes)
2.
They were going to need to take property between Lockwood and University,
when many people recall the bad taste the taking caused when US29 was widened.
The third impression (to a lesser extent than the other two) was that it would make
traffic worse on US29 and cause more cut-through traffic in residential areas. US29
between White Oak and University Blvd has probably the worst traffic congestion in
the county. It has had at least a 2 mile backup for probably three decade (and
there are no alternatives). It is not uncommon to backup to Randolph (4 miles) and
my guess is that there have been times when it is 15+ miles (well into Columbia).
The council had already had such an ear full by 1996 that they gave up. The Council
had been beat up by Community since 1981 (15 years already) when the Council put
massive development in the Eastern Montgomery County Master Plan. There was some
downzoning in 1989 and the 1997 master plan reduced things some more. The problem
is that so much land was developed in the mid 80s that the damage had been done.
The 1981 master plan was based upon transit serviceability, which never came about
(even to this day). The Council did what ITDP recommended in the recent report in
terms of adding massive development. The development that occurred was lots of low
income, single parent housing. This part of the county still has a lot of problems
as a result. We have the worse crime in the county as well as bad congestion,
especially on US29 south of NH.
Dan

To: Wilhelm, Dan
Cc: L. Mark Winston; Tina Slater; fwaters@Lerner.com; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn;
Street, Thomas
Subject: Re: US29 Busway study
Wow, fascinating, seems we've come full circle. Maybe a longer story for another
time, but what killed the plan, did the council vote it down, was there immense
community opposition? It seems like from this report they had already done a fair
amount of planning.
Thanks for sending, Dan!
Kelly Blynn
o: (202) 675-0016 ext. 127 | c: (610) 220-5378
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Wilhelm, Dan <dwilhelm@mitre.org> wrote:
All
Dan

To:
'Cscott@hotmail.com'
Cc:
Subject:
Communities for Transit, Inc. - Interview for Executive Director
Dear Mr. Scott:

Boulevard, Seventh Floor, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Please call Francine Waters
at 301-692-2563 to receive parking instructions.

designation as a Section 501 (c) (3) charitable organization. As you know, the



past?
1.
2.

3.
efforts in Montgomery County?
4.
5.
6.
7.

A.
B.
C.
D.
network?
E.
F.
systems?
G.
guide ways.
Communities for
Transit, Inc.
Committee
By:
The Executive
Tina Slater
Francine
Waters
Genn
Jonathan
Dan Wilhelm
Mark
Winston

To:
'Cscott@hotmail.com'
Cc:
Subject:
Communities for Transit, Inc. - Interview for Executive Director
Dear Mr. Scott:

Boulevard, Seventh Floor, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Please call Francine Waters
at 301-692-2563 to receive parking instructions.

designation as a Section 501 (c) (3) charitable organization. As you know, the



past?
1.
2.

3.
efforts in Montgomery County?
4.
5.
6.
7.

A.
B.
C.
D.
network?
E.
F.
systems?
G.
guide ways.
Communities for
Transit, Inc.
Committee
By:
The Executive
Tina Slater
Francine
Waters
Genn
Jonathan
Dan Wilhelm
Mark
Winston

To:
'Jonathan Sachs'; Street, Thomas
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Jonathan: I do not have it in front of me right now; however, if you go on the

County website and look at the County Code, I believe you will find the title
dealing with public ethics. It should be there. From my recollection of the text,
you should not have an issue, but you should confirm that with your counsel.
Mark
________________________________
To: Street, Thomas
Cc: L. Mark Winston; Tom.Street@montgomerycountymd.gov
Tom,

Jonathan
Sent from my iPhone

wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
Mark and Tom,
Thanks!
Jonathan
Jonathan Sachs
Rockville, MD
Ph:
20850
301.738.0015 ext. 205; Fax: 301.738.8792
<image002.png>
<image005.png>

organization.
<image006.png>

To:
'Jonathan Sachs'; Street, Thomas
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Jonathan: I do not have it in front of me right now; however, if you go on the

County website and look at the County Code, I believe you will find the title
dealing with public ethics. It should be there. From my recollection of the text,
you should not have an issue, but you should confirm that with your counsel.
Mark
________________________________
To: Street, Thomas
Cc: L. Mark Winston; Tom.Street@montgomerycountymd.gov
Tom,

Jonathan
Sent from my iPhone

wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
Mark and Tom,
Thanks!
Jonathan
Jonathan Sachs
Rockville, MD
Ph:
20850
301.738.0015 ext. 205; Fax: 301.738.8792
<image002.png>
<image005.png>

organization.
<image006.png>

To:
Mark Winston
Cc:
Subject:
Re: CFT - ED Interview
Attachments:
To ED Candidate, 02-01-13.Tina Comments.doc
Mark -Thanks for setting up the meeting times & I've reviewed the letter. Looks very
good to me & I think it sets the scene for what we are looking for. Not only will
this give the candidates a better idea of what we believe the job to be, but also
will allow them to prepare for it and make the best use of everyone's time.
In the attachment, I corrected one misspelling and tightened up the formatting, if
you care to use it.
-- Tina
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:42 AM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>
wrote:
02-01-13
To: All:
First, I propose that we set meetings for Tuesday
February 5th at 7pm at Francines office and Thursday February 7th also at
Francines. Second, I have attached the revised draft letter to interviewees.
Please take a quick look. I want to get this out today to the several recipients
so we have a chance of their being available next week.
Francine:
If having both sessions in your office is an issue please
let me know asap and we can do either or both in my office.
Thanks.
Mark

To:
Mark Winston
Cc:
Subject:
Re: CFT - ED Interview
Attachments:
To ED Candidate, 02-01-13.Tina Comments.doc
Mark -Thanks for setting up the meeting times & I've reviewed the letter. Looks very
good to me & I think it sets the scene for what we are looking for. Not only will
this give the candidates a better idea of what we believe the job to be, but also
will allow them to prepare for it and make the best use of everyone's time.
In the attachment, I corrected one misspelling and tightened up the formatting, if
you care to use it.
-- Tina
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:42 AM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>
wrote:
02-01-13
To: All:
First, I propose that we set meetings for Tuesday
February 5th at 7pm at Francines office and Thursday February 7th also at
Francines. Second, I have attached the revised draft letter to interviewees.
Please take a quick look. I want to get this out today to the several recipients
so we have a chance of their being available next week.
Francine:
If having both sessions in your office is an issue please
let me know asap and we can do either or both in my office.
Thanks.
Mark

Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 11:43 AM
To:
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
CFT - ED Interview
Attachments:
To ED Candidate, 02-01-13.doc
Importance: High
02-01-13
To: All:
First, I propose that we set meetings for Tuesday February
5th at 7pm at Francines office and Thursday February 7th also at Francines.
Second, I have attached the revised draft letter to interviewees. Please take a
quick look. I want to get this out today to the several recipients so we have a
chance of their being available next week.
Francine:
If having both sessions in your office is an issue please let
me know asap and we can do either or both in my office.
Thanks.
Mark

Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 11:43 AM
To:
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
CFT - ED Interview
Attachments:
To ED Candidate, 02-01-13.doc
Importance: High
02-01-13
To: All:
First, I propose that we set meetings for Tuesday February
5th at 7pm at Francines office and Thursday February 7th also at Francines.
Second, I have attached the revised draft letter to interviewees. Please take a
quick look. I want to get this out today to the several recipients so we have a
chance of their being available next week.
Francine:
If having both sessions in your office is an issue please let
me know asap and we can do either or both in my office.
Thanks.
Mark

To:
Holmes, Arthur; Roshdieh, Al; Street, Thomas; Mark Winston; Dan Wilhelm; Dan
Wilhelm
Cc:
Hansen, Marc P.
Subject:
Re: Resignation from Rapid Transit Steering Committee
Dear Marc:
Please forgive me for misspelling your last name in my first attempt to send this
email. I have corrected my typographical errors from that earlier draft.
Best Wishes.
Jonathan
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:18 AM, "Jonathan Genn" <Jonathan@Percontee.com> wrote:
> Dear Art and Al:
>
> As you will recall, at our last meeting of the Rapid Transit Steering Committee
(RTSC), Marc Hansen advised everyone of the "public employee" status every member
of the RTSC is deemed to have --- regardless of their public employee status
otherwise --- and Marc further described the applicable conflict of interest rules.
Immediately after that discussion at the RTSC meeting, I approached Marc Hansen to
raise my concern that there might be, at a minimum, a perception of a conflict of
interest with my participating in at least certain activities or decisions of the
RTSC. Marc expressed his initial thought that there would not appear to be a real
conflict of interest, and that there are likely procedures to get either an express
waiver or prescribe the scope of my permitted activities on the RTSC (which Marc
was willing to raise with the ethics committee).
>
> Nevertheless, after further reflection of these issues, I have concluded that any
potential for my serving on the RTSC raising even an appearance of impropriety is
not worth the risk of tarnishing or diverting attention away from the meritorious
and hard work of all the members on the RTSC. Accordingly, please accept this
email as my tender of resignation from the RTSC, effective immediately.
>
> Given my role on the RTSC was as one of the 3 members representing the interests
of the Rapid Transit Task Force, I will leave to Mr. Mark Winston the
responsibility to appoint a substitute member from the Transit Task Force to serve
as my successor to the RTSC.
>
> I thank you for your time and consideration, and wish the RTSC great success in
achieving its vision and mission.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Jonathan M. Genn
>
>
To:
Wilhelm
Cc:
Hansen, Marc P.
Subject:
Re: Resignation from Rapid Transit Steering Committee
Dear Marc:
Please forgive me for misspelling your last name in my first attempt to send this
email. I have corrected my typographical errors from that earlier draft.
Best Wishes.
Jonathan
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:18 AM, "Jonathan Genn" <Jonathan@Percontee.com> wrote:
> Dear Art and Al:
>
> As you will recall, at our last meeting of the Rapid Transit Steering Committee
(RTSC), Marc Hansen advised everyone of the "public employee" status every member
Immediately after that discussion at the RTSC meeting, I approached Marc Hansen to
raise my concern that there might be, at a minimum, a perception of a conflict of
interest with my participating in at least certain activities or decisions of the
RTSC. Marc expressed his initial thought that there would not appear to be a real
conflict of interest, and that there are likely procedures to get either an express
waiver or prescribe the scope of my permitted activities on the RTSC (which Marc
was willing to raise with the ethics committee).
>
> Nevertheless, after further reflection of these issues, I have concluded that any
>
> Given my role on the RTSC was as one of the 3 members representing the interests
of the Rapid Transit Task Force, I will leave to Mr. Mark Winston the
responsibility to appoint a substitute member from the Transit Task Force to serve
as my successor to the RTSC.
>
> I thank you for your time and consideration, and wish the RTSC great success in
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Jonathan M. Genn
>
>
To:
Mark Winston; 'Tina Slater'; Kelly Blynn
Cc:
fwaters@Lerner.com; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject:
US29 Busway study
Attachments:
Busway 1.pdf; busway 2.pdf; Busway 3.pdf; busway 4.pdf
All
Dan
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:57 AM
To:
Mark Winston
Cc:
Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas; 'Tina Slater'
Subject:
RE: CFT: Executive Director Interview
Attachments:
Importance: High
Good Morning,
I would be happy to host the meetings here at Lerner
--
Some thoughts:
In my opinion, it is not so much that the person would need intimate knowledge of
transportation, more importantly be a self starter, be able to communicate to large
groups of varying ages/ethnicity, be organized, be able to work with a board, be
able to train a staff quickly and effectively, be able to sell an idea to the
public . . . . .
What grassroots efforts have you lead in the past

How would you approach an outreach effort in Montgomery County
Where would you see this project in 6 months
Where would you see this project in 12 months
What would you consider a successful campaign
What would be your benchmarks
Have you worked for a non profit and/or set up a non profit
What are your expectations from your board members
How do you see the composition of your staff
How would you proceed in hiring staff
Have you ever set up your own office
How would you set up your data base of supporters

Have you presented to large audiences
How many presentations do you project you can do in a week, month
Have you worked with any groups in Montgomery County in the past?
associations, parent teacher associations, faith based if so who
civic
Francine
FRANCINE E. WATERS

Eighth Floor
301.692.2563 direct tel
301.692.2631 direct fax
Fwaters@Lerner.com
To: 'Tina Slater'
Cc: Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm; Wilhelm, Dan; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject: RE: CFT: Executive Director Interview
Importance: High
All: Thanks to Tina and Dan for their comments on the letter. I will revise
accordingly. If Francine or Jonathan have thoughts, please let me have them today.
Also, we will not meet today. I would like to set two meetings for interviews.
The first would be on Tuesday, February 4th and the second would be Thursday the
6th. Please let me know today whether or not you can attend. Thanks. Mark
________________________________

To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: fwaters@Lerner.com; Dan Wilhelm; Wilhelm, Dan; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject: Re: CFT: Executive Director Interview
Mark --
First -- I'm assuming we are not having a mtg Thurs 1/31 afternoon? If I'm
mistaken, please advise and let me know where we will meet. (I may have missed
this info at the 52 Seasons mtg.)
The letter looks very comprehensive and informs the candidate on what we are
expecting. It may be a bit intimidating for the ED candidate to address *all* the
points in the list, but then I went through and highlighted the ones I thought
someone with a somewhat general knowledge of BRT could handle, and I guess I
highlighted all but one. So maybe it's not that intimidating after all.
I'd suggest putting them in list format -- I know you're trying to keep it to one
page, but I think a list "reads" much more clearly.
Perhaps we could say that these are the areas we feel would need to be addressed.
Could they please comment on them and tell us how they would design a program
[guess we cannot say "campaign" lest we go afoul of the c3 limits...] to convey
information.
Before joining us for the interview we ask that you consider what programming,
events and methods of communication you would recommend, if you were to be selected
Executive Director. We believe our education program needs to address the
following subjects:
(a) What transportation-related issues confront Montgomery County and the region?
(b) What are the alternative solutions available, and what are the pros and cons
of each?
(c) Assuming that development of transit is the best answer and, more
particularly, a BRT-based approach as described in the Task Force report, what are
the most important characteristics of a successful system? What are the greatest
challenges presented to implementing a successful county-wide network?
(e) What benefits will accrue from implementation of a network?
(f)
What opportunities will be lost if such a network is not made operational?
(g) To what extent may traffic congestion and environmental quality problems, and
economic development needs, be addressed by the development of new roads projects
or changes in use of our existing road systems? (h) How can CFT best present what
a real network will look like and how it will feel? This relates to vehicles,
stations and guide ways.
--- Tina
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:33 AM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>

wrote:
01-30-13
Ladies and Gentlemen: In light of our discussion of last night, please take a look
at the attached draft of a communication I propose we have with candidates who we
will interview. Please offer any comments you may have. I would like to circulate
on Friday by 3pm so please comment by close of business Thursday, January 31.
Thanks. Mark
****ATTENTION****
To:
Wilhelm; Marc.Hanson@montgomerycountymd.com
Subject:
Resignation from Rapid Transit Steering Committee
Dear Art and Al:
As you will recall, at our last meeting of the Rapid Transit Steering Committee
(RTSC), Marc Hanson advised everyone of the "public employee" status every member
Immediately after that that discussion at the RTSC meeting, I approached Marc
Hanson to raise my concern that there might be, at a minimum, a perception of a
conflict of interest with my participating in at least certain activities or
decisions of the RTSC. Marc expressed his initial thought that there would not
appear to be a real conflict of interest, and that there are likely procedures to
get either an express waiver or prescribe the scope of my permitted activities on

the RTSC (which Marc was willing to raise with the ethics committee).
Nevertheless, after further reflection of these issues, I have concluded that any
Given my role on the RTSC was as one of the 3 members representing the interests of
the Rapid Transit Task Force, I will leave to Mr. Mark Winston the responsibility
to appoint a substitute member from the Transit Task Force to serve my successor to
the RTSC.
I thank you for your time and consideration, and wish the RTSC great success in
Best wishes,
Jonathan M. Genn
To:
Mark Winston
Cc:
fwaters@Lerner.com; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: CFT: Executive Director Interview
Tues Feb 4, I'm teaching from 4-6, but after that I'm available.
Thurs Feb 7, I'm available from 4pm and after.
-- Tina
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:25 AM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>
wrote:
All: Thanks to Tina and Dan for their comments on the letter. I will revise
accordingly. If Francine or Jonathan have thoughts, please let me have them today.
Also, we will not meet today. I would like to set two meetings for interviews.
The first would be on Tuesday, February 4th and the second would be Thursday the
6th. Please let me know today whether or not you can attend. Thanks. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: fwaters@Lerner.com; Dan Wilhelm; Wilhelm, Dan; Jonathan Genn; Street,
Thomas
Subject: Re: CFT: Executive Director Interview
Mark --
First -- I'm assuming we are not having a mtg Thurs 1/31 afternoon? If I'm
I'd suggest putting them in list format -- I know you're trying to keep it to
one page, but I think a list "reads" much more clearly.
Perhaps we could say that these are the areas we feel would need to be
addressed. Could they please comment on them and tell us how they would design a
program [guess we cannot say "campaign" lest we go afoul of the c3 limits...] to
convey information.
Before joining us for the interview we ask that you consider what
programming, events and methods of communication you would recommend, if you were
to be selected Executive Director. We believe our education program needs to
address the following subjects:
(a) What transportation-related issues confront Montgomery County and the
region?
(b) What are the alternative solutions available, and what are the pros and
cons of each?
(f) What opportunities will be lost if such a network is not made
operational?
(g) To what extent may traffic congestion and environmental quality
problems, and economic development needs, be addressed by the development of new
roads projects or changes in use of our existing road systems? (h) How can CFT
best present what a real network will look like and how it will feel? This relates
to vehicles, stations and guide ways.
--- Tina
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:33 AM, L. Mark Winston

01-30-13
Ladies and Gentlemen: In light of our discussion of last night, please take
a look at the attached draft of a communication I propose we have with candidates
who we will interview. Please offer any comments you may have. I would like to
circulate on Friday by 3pm so please comment by close of business Thursday,
January 31. Thanks. Mark

To:
Mark Winston
Cc:
fwaters@Lerner.com; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: CFT: Executive Director Interview
Mark -First -- I'm assuming we are not having a mtg Thurs 1/31 afternoon? If I'm
I'd suggest putting them in list format -- I know you're trying to keep it to one
page, but I think a list "reads" much more clearly.
Perhaps we could say that these are the areas we feel would need to be addressed.
Could they please comment on them and tell us how they would design a program
[guess we cannot say "campaign" lest we go afoul of the c3 limits...] to convey
information.
Before joining us for the interview we ask that you consider what programming,
events and methods of communication you would recommend, if you were to be selected
Executive Director. We believe our education program needs to address the
following subjects:
(a) What transportation-related issues confront Montgomery County and the region?
(b) What are the alternative solutions available, and what are the pros and cons
of each?
(f) What opportunities will be lost if such a network is not made operational?
(g) To what extent may traffic congestion and environmental quality problems, and
economic development needs, be addressed by the development of new roads projects
or changes in use of our existing road systems? (h) How can CFT best present what
a real network will look like and how it will feel? This relates to vehicles,
stations and guide ways.
--- Tina
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:33 AM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>
wrote:
01-30-13
Ladies and Gentlemen: In light of our discussion of last night, please take
a look at the attached draft of a communication I propose we have with candidates
who we will interview. Please offer any comments you may have. I would like to
circulate on Friday by 3pm so please comment by close of business Thursday,
January 31. Thanks. Mark

Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:34 AM
To:
Tina Slater; fwaters@Lerner.com; 'Dan Wilhelm'; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
CFT: Executive Director Interview
Attachments:
Interview Invitation to Candidates, 01-30-13.doc
01-30-13
Ladies and Gentlemen: In light of our discussion of last night, please take a look
at the attached draft of a communication I propose we have with candidates who we
will interview. Please offer any comments you may have. I would like to circulate
on Friday by 3pm so please comment by close of business Thursday, January 31.
Thanks. Mark

Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:00 PM
To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Fw: White Flint Roads
Fyi
From: Greg Derby [mailto:greg.derby@edgemoordevelopment.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 03:45 PM
To: Jorgen Punda <JPunda@gables.com>
Cc: Francine Waters; Winstead, David L. (DC) <WINSTEADD@ballardspahr.com>; Bo Hooff
<bo.hooff@clarkconstruction.com>; Jon Harman <jharman@shirleycontracting.com>; Evan
Goldman (egoldman@federalrealty.com) <egoldman@federalrealty.com>; Edward Meder
<EMeder@gables.com>
Subject: Re: White Flint Roads
All,
Jon Harman and I presented to a large group of County staff last Wednesday
regarding a turnkey concepts for delivering several of the transit improvements on
the west side of Rockville Pike and for the Pike itself. The audience included 19
staff and 1 consultant from MCDOT, Finance, OMB, DPS and the County Execs office.
Dee Metz organized the meeting. I would characterize the staff as engaged in the
meeting. They asked plenty of questions. The most vocal person was Edgar
Gonzales, who is clearly a naysayer. His concern was time to procure eliminating
any time savings from the turnkey approach. The second biggest concern expressed
was getting property owners to agree to and make their land dedications. On the
finance side, Mike Coveyou expressed some concerns over some of our assumptions but
also was willing to look further to see what could work. Permitting staff also
asked quite a few questions. I will let Jon Harman respond back with his own
comments if he likes, but I would say the response was not surprising but it also
points to still a lot of work needed to progress an alternative delivery forward on
this project and as that time extends, the benefits lessen because the County will
continue to progress thinks (albeit not at the pace you would like).
Regards,
Greg Derby
Managing Director
Edgemoor Infrastructure & Real Estate
7500 Old Georgetown Road
Bethesda, MD 20814
(o) 301-272-2993 (m) 240-994-2884
greg.derby@edgemoordevelopment.com
****ATTENTION****

Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 8:33 AM
To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Examiner story
Tom:
Below is exchange I had with Kelly of CSG.
Mark
________________________________
To: 'Kelly Blynn'; Alex Posorske; Stewart Schwartz
Subject: RE: Examiner story
Kelly: A couple of observations. People need to understand that the purpose of

the new position is not to coordinate two studies. It is to be the leading staff
person on MCDOTs efforts in connection with what MCDOT calls the RTS. It is
preposterous to think that the existing complement of MCDOT staff can manage the
wide range of tasks necessary to move the project along. Even without taking into
consideration the extensive network the Task Force proposed, there are several
corridors which are in various stages of planning now and which require this
leadership position.
With regard to the Steering Committee, it has been charged as advising

the Countys Chief Administrative Officer and County Executive on policy-making and
implementation planning for the RTS system. Its work is at very early stages. The
first step will be to adopt scopes of work for the two initial studies that were
funded by recent County Council action.
Mark
________________________________

To: L. Mark Winston; Alex Posorske; Stewart Schwartz
Subject: Examiner story
Hey Mark,
Do you know more about the position moving forward from the steering committee?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/montgomery-county-md.-creates-150k-per-year-post-forbus-studies/article/2519732
Just wondering what the response ought to be to this article.

good week,
Hope you're having a
Kelly Blynn
o: (202) 675-0016 ext. 127 | c: (610) 220-5378
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 10:43 AM
To:
Wenger, Melanie
Cc:
Holmes, Arthur; Street, Thomas
Subject:
State Funds for Transportation
Melanie
Committee For Montgomery (CFM) is having a meeting on Feb 4 and we want to take a
position on the three bills Senator Miller is proposing to introduce. We would like
to be supportive of MCs position. Could you let us know what position the county
has?
According to press articles, Senator Miller will be introducing bills this week
dealing with transportation. His proposals according to the press are:
1.
In an interview with The Washington Post, Senate President Thomas V. Mike
Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) floated the idea of leasing the $2.6 billion Intercounty
Connector (ICC) to a private operator as he outlined an approach to raising new
revenue to help alleviate traffic congestion and covering the states share of
long-planned rail projects.
2.
Post: Under Millers proposal, the state would impose a new 3 percent sales
tax on gasoline that would be used for new roads and bridges. The statewide levy
would come on top of the 23.5-cent-per-gallon tax that motorists already pay at the
pump. It would generate more than $300 million a year in new revenue, analysts say.
3.
In addition, the state would create one or more regional authorities with
the power to raise property taxes to help pay for the Purple Line in the Washington
region and the Red Line in Baltimore. Neither light-rail project is expected to
move forward without major federal funding as well. Examiner: Thomas V. Mike Miller
Jr., D-Prince George's and Calvert counties, told reporters Thursday that his plan
includes allowing counties to charge their own gas tax up to 5 cents per gallon and
attaching a sales tax to gasoline to pay for local projects. He is expected to
introduce legislation next week.
Let me share my personal view at this point in time:

1. ICC: I think it is a poor idea, since it just adds more funds that will need to
be paid back later.
2. Support. This is largely the idea the county supported last year.
3. Support idea of creating regional authorities. Not clear whether this will be a
property tax and gas tax. I think we need more ways to raise $ for projects of
interest to MC, like the purple line. I would expect other urban/suburban counties
would also want this capability, and thus we will not be an island if the tax is on
gas.
Dan
To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Draft Integration Study SOW
Attachments:
Service planning and integration Study 1-26.docx
01-28-13
Tom:
I wanted you to see this.
Mark
________________________________
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:30 PM
To: Jonathan Genn; L. Mark Winston
Cc: Wilhelm, Dan
Subject: Draft Integration Study SOW
Mark and Jonathan
I largely rewrote the integration SOW is actually focus on local bus and
integration, not the RTS route design. I think the results of this study and what
comes out of the Planning Staff and Board is when the actual RTS route design
should be decided. I also eliminated the branding work since I think it is too
early and I am not convinced that the County should be doing that work anyway. I am
thinking along the line that our group should do the branding study. I also think
that much of the public outreach will be done as we have discussed recently. Some
outreach (ie study results) will need to be presented by MCDOT.
Please look over the attached revision. I need to send this off to Al and Gary
tomorrow night, so a quick review is needed. Im more interested in what I am not
thinking about that should be included.
Dan
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:13 AM
To:
Jonathan Genn; Tina Slater
Cc:
Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas; 'Kelly Blynn'
Subject:
RE: Communities for Transit, Inc. - Executive Director Search
I am happy to adopt Jonathans approach proposed below. What time and where is the
event? Is there a place we could gather after we attend where we could have a
private discussion of how to conduct the interviews? Mark
________________________________
To: Tina Slater
Cc: L. Mark Winston; Francine Waters; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas
Subject: Re: Communities for Transit, Inc. - Executive Director Search
I would like to propose that we do not start interviewing until Jan 31. In light
of the Happy Hour event at Seasons 52 on Jan 29 sponsored by CSG and White Flint
Partnership (also involving Hans Riemer and Roger Berliner), I suggest we all RSVP
and go to that event, and then we meet afterwards to discuss what we want to ask
and other strategies for the interviews. In case you did not get CSG's email
invite, I will send it around to everyone right after this email.
Thanks.
Jonathan

and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office:
301-622-0100
Mobile:
410-935-2599
Email:
Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 22, 2013, at 9:34 AM, "Tina Slater" <slater.tina@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark --
Thank you. (Actually, I think you did send us Charlie's resume on Jan 7).
The other three you had sent Jan 2 (Curtis Johnson, Evan Glass, Gross-Glazer) --but somehow, of the triplet you sent Jan 2, I had only "registered"/"read" Evan &
Gross-Glazer (I missed reading Curtis Johnson's material, so when I mentioned "3
resumes" yesterday, I was thinking of Charlie, Evan & G-G... ) Addled brain...
I'll review all four again and look forward to our meeting next week.
Are we going to formulate questions that we'd like to ask all the candidates
(or maybe you've already drafter some)? Do we want to give each candidate a "clean
slate" to answer our questions & make their pitch (rather than
discussing/"prejudging" any of the resumes beforehand)?
--- Tina
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:10 AM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>
wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen: I looked back over my sent emails and realized that I
had not forwarded the below and attached to you. This is the fourth resume. Mark
<image001.jpg>
________________________________
From: Charlie Scott [mailto:charliescott00@hotmail.com]
To: L. Mark Winston
Subject: Communities for Transit, Inc. - Executive Director Search
Mark,
I heard from colleagues at Montgomery DOT about Communities for Transit, Inc.
and your Executive Director search.
I am interested in meeting with you and the search committee and have
attached my resume and cover letter for your consideration.
My home and cell numbers are included on my resume, and you are also welcome
to call me at work at 202.962.1006.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Charlie

To:
Tina Slater
Cc:
Mark Winston; Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: Communities for Transit, Inc. - Executive Director Search
I would like to propose that we do not start interviewing until Jan 31. In light
of the Happy Hour event at Seasons 52 on Jan 29 sponsored by CSG and White Flint
Partnership (also involving Hans Riemer and Roger Berliner), I suggest we all RSVP
and go to that event, and then we meet afterwards to discuss what we want to ask
and other strategies for the interviews. In case you did not get CSG's email
invite, I will send it around to everyone right after this email.
Thanks.
Jonathan
and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 22, 2013, at 9:34 AM, "Tina Slater" <slater.tina@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark -Thank you. (Actually, I think you did send us Charlie's resume on Jan 7).
The other three you had sent Jan 2 (Curtis Johnson, Evan Glass, Gross-Glazer) --but somehow, of the triplet you sent Jan 2, I had only "registered"/"read" Evan &
Gross-Glazer (I missed reading Curtis Johnson's material, so when I mentioned "3
resumes" yesterday, I was thinking of Charlie, Evan & G-G... ) Addled brain...
I'll review all four again and look forward to our meeting next week.
Are we going to formulate questions that we'd like to ask all the candidates
(or maybe you've already drafter some)? Do we want to give each candidate a "clean
slate" to answer our questions & make their pitch (rather than
discussing/"prejudging" any of the resumes beforehand)?
--- Tina
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:10 AM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>
wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen: I looked back over my sent emails and realized
that I had not forwarded the below and attached to you. This is the fourth resume.
Mark
<image001.jpg>
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Mark,
I heard from colleagues at Montgomery DOT about Communities for

Transit, Inc. and your Executive Director search.
I am interested in meeting with you and the search committee and have
attached my resume and cover letter for your consideration.
My home and cell numbers are included on my resume, and you are also
welcome to call me at work at 202.962.1006.
Regards,
Charlie
To:
Holmes, Arthur
Cc:
Roshdieh, Al; Street, Thomas; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn
Subject:
Steering Committee Meeting
01-22-13
Director Holmes: I keeping with our discussion of a couple of weeks ago, I wanted
to give you a heads up of a few of the points that Dan, Jonathan and I may raise
at todays meeting.
First, in connection with the approval of the minutes, I realize that I had to
leave after the first part of the meeting and missed much of the discussion. I am
concerned about the discussion under Steering Committee Mission and Schedule
dealing with the narrowness of the mission statement. In particular, the
paragraph dealing with this subject seems to imply that our planning may need to
await tying our system into neighboring jurisdictions. While I favor regional
integration, I do not favor allowing this to delay the development of our system in
any way and would ask that this view (even if a minority view) be reflected in
the minutes so that silence on this point is not taken as consent.
Second, there is significant discussion in the minutes of ITDPs work with MCDOT
and this extends to references to ITDPs memorandum to the County Executive. I
have had mixed views on whether we should respond to the ITDP memo. In light of
Mr. Leventhals questions in recent Council hearings, a response may be
unavoidable. If a response is to be made, the ITDP memo must be addressed
frontally. Its basic assumptions need to be challenged.
Third, with regard to the status of the supplemental appropriation, in light of the
Council action, some consideration should be given to using the pre-existing
appropriation to perform further financial structuring analysis (using PFM), which
would allow a review of how the structure of how the RTS could be financed to focus
on the impact this might have on the organizational issues.
Fourth, there may be some suggestions on the description of the scope of work for
the integration study.
As we discussed at our meeting a couple of weeks ago, we may want to raise the
subject of working groups with the Steering Committee.
Thanks.
Mark

To:
Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: RTS Steering Committee Minutes and Meeting
Dan: As usual, your perspective leads to our honing in on the real issues. Let me
suggest a different way of putting it. The study needs to start with the
assumption that there will be 7 corridors in Phase One. It then needs to evaluate
how the collateral transit assets (i.e., Ride-On and Metrobus) would be
reconfigured in order to maximize the feeder function to the RTS corridors. That
would then lead to hypothetical routing configurations (multiple starting and
ending points using multiple corridors?). That would then influence if not dictate
the type of operations needed within the corridors and the possible location of
stations. During TTF deliberations we made reference to studies which discussed
how far away from the start and end points of a route could the transit asset be
and still attract and retain a rider. That also needs to be a basic assumption of
the study. Thoughts? Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston; Dan Wilhelm; 'Jonathan Genn'
Subject: RE: RTS Steering Committee Minutes and Meeting
Mark
On the scope SOW, I think the first topic is no going where it needs to. It is
focusing on the RTS routes and I think the focus needs to be on integration of
local bus with the RTS, Namely what changes to local bus need to be made, where can
the local routes be expanded to pick up more people, how many vehicles and of what
type of needed buses, etc. The focus also needs to be on the near-term, not long
term. The starting point is the current local bus ridership and what RTS ridership
can be reasonable expected when the first routes are implemented, We dont care
much about what it will look like in 30 or 40 years. I also think it is too early
to address sidewalks, which is part of what I heard from Glenn Orlan and Council.
The DOT staff appears to be approaching the RTS as essentially another local bus
service. If they continue down that road, then I agree with ITDP. To me, ITDP
focused on the RTS as essentially a local bus service, not a network of higher
capacity and high speed corridors. I disagree with much of what ITDP concludes but
they do have one valid point and that is how to get enough ridership early on (say
one year) of when the phase 1 is operational to be able to afford the cost of the
RTS.
Dan

To: Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; 'Jonathan Genn'

Subject: RTS Steering Committee Minutes and Meeting
01-22-13
Dan and Jonathan: I have reviewed the (1) draft minutes of the Meeting of December
4, 2012; (2) draft RTS Task Order Study Scopes; and (3) agenda for this afternoons
meeting, and have a few observations. I would appreciate your thoughts.
With respect to the minutes, unfortunately I had to leave early and

missed most of the meeting. I note that the minutes do not reflect any exception
to the characterizations of the ITDP work product. While there are a number of
issues, both factual and philosophical, one obvious issue is that if we were to be
guided by the ITDP perspective we would not build RTS in the Route 29 corridor. We
have to challenge the ITDP approach. Its work has taken on a life of its own
including being cited by Council members to undermine the introduction of an RTS
network. I also want to challenge the statement about the discussion of the
timeline constriction on the mission. (Was this actually discussed?) I dont
know what that means; however, if it means what I think it does I am concerned.
While I support developing a network that is integratable, I disagree that we
should delay implementation of our network because of regional planning issues.
With respect to the Task Order Study Scopes, the document is

interesting. It does not indicate as to which items as existing contractor is in
place and as to which a new procurement will be necessary. I note a few things.
First, it includes all 7 corridors. This may be limited in light of Council
action. Second, the draft states at page 3 that any future transit corridors
that are proposed in studies by WMATA will be mapped to ensure that the RTS does
not duplicate any proposed services, but works in concert with the larger network.
Again, I think this has the point exactly in the opposite of what our approach
should be. The RTS network should have a priority over ordinary bus or express bus
service. This suggests that if WMATA expands is bus priorities corridor program
that the RTS network should fall to it.
Mark

To:
'Tina Slater'; Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Communities for Transit, Inc. - Executive Director Search
Attachments:
CScott - CFT cover letter.docx; Charlie Scott Resume.doc
Ladies and Gentlemen: I looked back over my sent emails and realized that I had
not forwarded the below and attached to you. This is the fourth resume. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Mark,
I heard from colleagues at Montgomery DOT about Communities for Transit, Inc. and
your Executive Director search.
I am interested in meeting with you and the search committee and have attached my
resume and cover letter for your consideration.
My home and cell numbers are included on my resume, and you are also welcome to
call me at work at 202.962.1006.
Regards,
Charlie
To:
Tina Slater
Cc:
Mark Winston; Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: CFT Executive Committee Meetings
Sorry for the delayed response.
everyone.
Jonathan
Yes, I will be at these meetings.
Take Care,
and General Counsel

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 21, 2013, at 7:47 PM, "Tina Slater" <slater.tina@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark -- I've got all these written down in my calendar. Thank you very much
for accommodating our schedules. Looking forward to the interviews. --- Tina
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:21 AM, L. Mark Winston
01-20-13
Ladies and Gentlemen: I propose that, based on our most recent

exchange of schedules, the Executive Committee meet as follows:
1.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 from 6:30 to 9:00 pm.
The agenda will be to interview several candidates from the first round of resumes
received for Executive Director. We will also receive a report on the status of
the RTS system based on the work of the County Steering Committee.
2.
Thursday, January 31, 2013 from 4:00 to 6:00 pm.
The agenda for this meeting will be to complete interviews of available candidates
and to begin discussions of whether and how to revise the program of CFT.
3.
Thursday, February 7, 2013 from 6:30 to 9:00 pm.
The agenda will be further interviews if necessary and further discussion of
program changes.
I will also circulate a note regarding a meeting of the full board of

directors some time in February, after all prospective members have been contacted.
Thanks.
Mark
<image001.jpg>

To:
Mark Winston
Cc:
Subject:
Mark -- I've got all these written down in my calendar. Thank you very much for
accommodating our schedules. Looking forward to the interviews. --- Tina
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:21 AM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>
wrote:
01-20-13
Ladies and Gentlemen: I propose that, based on our most recent exchange of
schedules, the Executive Committee meet as follows:
1.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 from 6:30 to 9:00 pm. The
agenda will be to interview several candidates from the first round of resumes
received for Executive Director. We will also receive a report on the status of
the RTS system based on the work of the County Steering Committee.
2.
Thursday, January 31, 2013 from 4:00 to 6:00 pm. The
agenda for this meeting will be to complete interviews of available candidates and
to begin discussions of whether and how to revise the program of CFT.
3.
Thursday, February 7, 2013 from 6:30 to 9:00 pm. The
agenda will be further interviews if necessary and further discussion of program
changes.

Thanks.
Mark

To:
Dan Wilhelm
Cc:
Mark Winston; Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Of the 3 resumes I have seen, I am somewhat familiar with 2 and believe that both
are definitely worth interviewing. And I thought the 3rd candidate looked pretty
good too. [Have more than 3 resumes been circulated? If so, I'd better go back
and scan my e-mails......]
--- Tina
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Dan Wilhelm <djwilhelm@verizon.net> wrote:
Mark
Has someone screened these people so that we are interviewing only the ones
that look like a good fit? How long has the job position been posted?
Dan

Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 10:21 AM
To: 'Tina Slater'; Francine Waters; 'Wilhelm, Dan'; Dan Wilhelm; 'Jonathan
Genn'

Subject: CFT Executive Committee Meetings
01-20-13
Ladies and Gentlemen: I propose that, based on our most recent exchange of
schedules, the Executive Committee meet as follows:
1.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 from 6:30 to 9:00 pm. The agenda
will be to interview several candidates from the first round of resumes received
for Executive Director. We will also receive a report on the status of the RTS
system based on the work of the County Steering Committee.
2.
Thursday, January 31, 2013 from 4:00 to 6:00 pm. The
agenda for this meeting will be to complete interviews of available candidates and
to begin discussions of whether and how to revise the program of CFT.
3.
Thursday, February 7, 2013 from 6:30 to 9:00 pm. The
agenda will be further interviews if necessary and further discussion of program
changes.

Thanks.
Mark

Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:06 PM
To:
Mark Winston; Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Rapid Transit System Steering Committee Meeting
Attachments:
Steering Committee Agenda Meeting 2 v2.docx
CONFIDENTIAL
From the Agenda that was just sent around, Im not sure that anyone particularly
heard (or paid much attention to) our comments and suggestions for the most
effective use of the RTSC. But I will try to keep an open mind and listen to how
things play out on Jan 22.
For those of you who will be at T&E tomorrow morning, Ill see you then!
Jonathan
From: Tyree, Thomas [mailto:Thomas.Tyree@montgomerycountymd.gov] On Behalf Of

Holmes, Arthur
To: skannan@wmata.com; ldormsjo@mdot.state.md.us; mwinston@glazerwinston.com;
Jonathan@Percontee.com; dwilhelm@mitre.org; Casey Anderson; Thomas.Autry@mncppcmc.org; fspielberg@cox.net; Roshdieh, Al; Gonzalez, Edgar; Erenrich, Gary
Cc: Holmes, Arthur; Herringa, Leonard; Leach, Stacy; Tyree, Thomas
Subject: Rapid Transit System Steering Committee Meeting
Dear RTS Steering Committee Members:
This is a reminder that the next RTS Steering Committee meeting will be held on
January 22, 2013 between 4 pm and 6 pm on the 9th floor of the Executive Office
Building located at 101 Monroe Street, Rockville MD. Parking will be available on
Level G-2 (lowest level).
I have attached the draft agenda for this meeting. I anticipate sending out prior
to the meeting, the draft scopes of work for the RTS Studies that are subject to
the Council Supplemental Appropriation request before them. Please contact me if
you have any questions. I look forward to a good and productive meeting.

240-777-7170

To:
Subject:
Just up -- Grtr Grtr Wash post on BRT
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/17374/to-build-support-for-montgomery-brtstart-with-the-basics/
-- Tina
To:
Dan Wilhelm
Cc:
Mark Winston; Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Tina Slater
Subject:
Re: US29 study
Dan:
I don't care what the others say, you are awesome!!!!
Jonathan

and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:34 AM, "Wilhelm, Dan" <dwilhelm@mitre.org> wrote:
I found a paper copy of the 1996 US 29 Busway Feasibility Study. I will get
it into a pdf file and send it around. I think we all need to read it for
information we can learn and also to address community criticism of the RTV.

To: L. Mark Winston (mwinston@glazerwinston.com); Dan Wilhelm
(djwilhelm@verizon.net); Wilhelm, Dan; Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com);
Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); 'Street, Thomas'
(Tom.Street@montgomerycountymd.gov)
Subject: We're losing all the Rapid Transit Buzz to NoVa
How can we shake up Mont Co to wake up and get into the game so we dont
get left behind as irrelevant? If I were Rockefeller Foundation (or prospective
institutional investors in bond financing), Id stop wasting my money on the
paralysis by analysis crowd in Mont Co and Maryland, and seek a better return on
investment with NoVa.
Please note the following: (1) Ambitious Rapid Transit in Tysons Corner, (2)
Potentially buying back the Dulles Greenway, and (3) Even the Republican (anti-tax)
Governor is become bolder with potential tax revenues. Were pathetic.
1.
Greater Greater Washington, Like a big city, Tysons will be a
transit hub, Dan Malouff, January 14, 2013
Like a big city, Tysons will be a transit hub
Tysons Corner has more office space than downtown Baltimore, Richmond, and
Norfolk put together. It should be the center its own large transit network. The
Silver Line and express buses on the Beltway HOT lanes are good first steps, but in
the long run Tysons is going to need more routes, connecting it to more places.
In the long run, Tysons needs something more like this:

<image001.jpg>
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/beyonddc/8381529142/in/photostream>
In recent years, planners in Virginia have begun to seriously consider a
Tysons-centric rapid transit network. It doesn't have a name, and isn't officially
separate from any of the other transportation planning going on in the region, but
it shows up on long range regional plans like SuperNoVa
<http://drpt.virginia.gov/activities/supernovatransitstudy.aspx> and TransAction
<http://www.thenovaauthority.org/transaction2040/trans2040publications.html> .
In addition to the Silver Line <http://www.dullesmetro.com/> , HOT Lanes
Buses <http://www.vamegaprojects.com/commuter-solutions/tysons-bus-services/gotysons/tysons-express-woodbridge/> , and Tysons' internal circulation network
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/planning-officials-see-buses-at-center-oftransit-network-serving-tysons-corner/2013/01/12/94749d5c-4ba5-11e2-a6a6aabac85e8036_story.html> , officials are beginning to study light rail connections
to Maryland, Falls Church, and Merrifield, and BRT on the Chain Bridge Road
corridor.
It will be years before any of these additional routes are implemented, and
they could look very different from this map once they finally are. Details don't
exist yet, because at this point these are little more than ideas.
But to work as the urban place Fairfax County officials hope Tysons will
become, this is the sort of regional infrastructure it's going to need.
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/17353/like-a-big-city-tysons-willbe-a-transit-hub/ <http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/17353/like-a-big-citytysons-will-be-a-transit-hub/>
2. Washington Business Journal, Virginia lawmakers consider buying Greenway,

backing Dulles Toll Road debt, January 14, 2013
Virginia lawmakers consider buying Greenway, backing Dulles Toll Road debt
Lawmakers in Virginia are now negotiating to buy the privately owned Dulles
Greenway, a toll road west of Dulles International Airport, in a creative effort to
keep tolls low on the road, the Washington Examiner reported
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/virginia-lawmakers-consider-buying-greenway-backingdulles-toll-road-debt/article/2518421#.UPPvOaXe7zI> . The General Assembly is
considering legislation that would allow the state to borrow money through a bond
issue to pay for the road's purchase and upkeep.
"I have to be able to negotiate an acceptable deal in terms of what we pay
for it," said Del. Joe May, R-Leesburg, who is leading the push to buy the road.
"I'm optimistic we're going to find a deal that works for both sides." The Greenway
could cost hundreds of millions of dollars, May said, but state ownership would be
good news for commuters. Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., a longtime critic of the high toll
rates on the Greenway, called May's plan "a great idea."
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/morning_call/2013/01/virginialawmakers-consider-buying.html
<http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/morning_call/2013/01/virginia-lawmakersconsider-buying.html>
3.
Loudoun Times-Mirror, Governor bares vast transportation proposal,
Trevor Baratko, January 8, 2013
Governor bares vast transportation proposal
One day before the Virginia General Assembly convenes for the final session
of his term, Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell unveiled a sweeping transportation
package Tuesday that scraps the states 17.5-cent-per-gallon gas tax and bumps
Virginias sales and use tax nearly a percent.
The proposal, which McDonnell highlighted at a press conference in Richmond,
pushes the 5-percent sales tax to 5.8 percent, a measure that would help provide
more than $3 billion in transportation for the commonwealth over the next five
years, according to the governors office.
If the governors proposal is adopted by state lawmakers something thats
months and many debates away Virginia would be the only state in the nation to
do away with the gas tax.
Virginias current gas tax rate has gone unchanged since 1986. Factoring in
inflation, a more diverse economy and an increase in energy-efficient vehicles, the
gas tax mechanism has led to severe shortfalls in the growing commonwealth.
For Northern Virginia residents reliant on the Dulles Toll Roadand residents
looking forward to Metros Silver Line extensionMcDonnells transportation pitch
specifically calls for allocating an additional $300 million for Phase Two of the
Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project, or Rail to Dulles. That $300 million, paired
with the $150 million the state has already devoted to the project that extends
Metro to the Dulles Airport and into Loudoun, would help keep tolls from soaring
along the Dulles Toll Road. The toll road is operated by the Metropolitan
Washington Airports Authority, which is managing and largely funding Rail to
Dulles.
Moreover, McDonnell wants to dedicate an additional .25 cent of the existing
sales and use tax to transportation. Currently, transportation receives 0.5 cent of
the sales tax. The governor wants to phase in this share to 0.75 cent over five
years.
When combined with the 0.8 cent sales and use tax increase, transportation
will receive approximately one-quarter of sales and use tax proceeds, thus ensuring
a sustainable transportation revenue stream for the future, states a release about
McDonnells transportation plan. All of the revenues from the additional .25 cent
will be dedicated to support maintenance and operations. During the first three
years up to $300 million will be committed to the Dulles Metrorail Extension
Project, providing the reforms identified by the U.S. Department of Transportation
Inspector General are implemented.
Current projections show Virginias transportation maintenance funds falling
$364 million short in fiscal 2013, meaning that money will be transferred from the
states construction account to the road maintenance account. That shortfall is
expected to grow to $500 million by 2019 if new funding or revenue streams arent
arent secured.
In short, Virginia has to use money meant for construction for paving and
potholes, McDonnells office notes.
The transportation proposal would also increase the vehicle registration fee
by $15, with the revenue going toward intercity passenger rail and transit, and
impose a $100 annual fee on alternative fuel vehicles, also to be used for transit.
Additionally, the tax on diesel fuel would go unchanged because heavy trucks
have a disproportionately large impact on the deterioration of Virginias
highways, states McDonnells announcement.
At the press conference, McDonnell noted that transportation and education
are the two prime focuses of his final year in office.
If the state government hasnt provided kids with world-class schools and
roads, McDonnell said, then the government has failed.
Transportation is a core function of government. Children cant get to
school; parents waste too much time in traffic; and businesses cant move their
goods without an adequate and efficient transportation system, McDonnell said.
http://www.loudountimes.com/index.php/news/article/mcdonnell_bares_expansive_transp
ortation_proposal545/
<http://www.loudountimes.com/index.php/news/article/mcdonnell_bares_expansive_trans
portation_proposal545/>
Jonathan

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Office Telephone:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Office Telecopier:
Mobile Telephone:
Email:
301-622-3507
410-935-2599

To:
Jonathan Genn; Mark Winston; Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Tina Slater
Subject:
US29 study
I found a paper copy of the 1996 US 29 Busway Feasibility Study. I will get it into
a pdf file and send it around. I think we all need to read it for information we
can learn and also to address community criticism of the RTV.

To: L. Mark Winston (mwinston@glazerwinston.com); Dan Wilhelm
(djwilhelm@verizon.net); Wilhelm, Dan; Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com);
Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); 'Street, Thomas'
(Tom.Street@montgomerycountymd.gov)
Subject: We're losing all the Rapid Transit Buzz to NoVa
How can we shake up Mont Co to wake up and get into the game so we dont get left
behind as irrelevant? If I were Rockefeller Foundation (or prospective
1.
Greater Greater Washington, Like a big city, Tysons will be a transit
hub, Dan Malouff, January 14, 2013
Tysons Corner has more office space than downtown Baltimore, Richmond, and Norfolk
put together. It should be the center its own large transit network. The Silver
Line and express buses on the Beltway HOT lanes are good first steps, but in the
long run Tysons is going to need more routes, connecting it to more places.
In recent years, planners in Virginia have begun to seriously consider a Tysonscentric rapid transit network. It doesn't have a name, and isn't officially
In addition to the Silver Line <http://www.dullesmetro.com/> , HOT Lanes Buses
<http://www.vamegaprojects.com/commuter-solutions/tysons-bus-services/gotysons/tysons-express-woodbridge/> , and Tysons' internal circulation network
corridor.
It will be years before any of these additional routes are implemented, and they
could look very different from this map once they finally are. Details don't exist
yet, because at this point these are little more than ideas.
But to work as the urban place Fairfax County officials hope Tysons will become,
this is the sort of regional infrastructure it's going to need.
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/17353/like-a-big-city-tysons-will-be-atransit-hub/ <http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/17353/like-a-big-citytysons-will-be-a-transit-hub/>

"I have to be able to negotiate an acceptable deal in terms of what we pay for it,"
said Del. Joe May, R-Leesburg, who is leading the push to buy the road. "I'm
optimistic we're going to find a deal that works for both sides." The Greenway
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/morning_call/2013/01/virginia-lawmakersconsider-buying.html
3.
Loudoun Times-Mirror, Governor bares vast transportation proposal, Trevor
Baratko, January 8, 2013
One day before the Virginia General Assembly convenes for the final session of his
term, Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell unveiled a sweeping transportation package
Tuesday that scraps the states 17.5-cent-per-gallon gas tax and bumps Virginias
sales and use tax nearly a percent.
The proposal, which McDonnell highlighted at a press conference in Richmond, pushes
the 5-percent sales tax to 5.8 percent, a measure that would help provide more than
$3 billion in transportation for the commonwealth over the next five years,
according to the governors office.
If the governors proposal is adopted by state lawmakers something thats months
and many debates away

with the gas tax.
Virginia would be the only state in the nation to do away
Dulles.
Moreover, McDonnell wants to dedicate an additional .25 cent of the existing sales
and use tax to transportation. Currently, transportation receives 0.5 cent of the
sales tax. The governor wants to phase in this share to 0.75 cent over five years.
When combined with the 0.8 cent sales and use tax increase, transportation will
receive approximately one-quarter of sales and use tax proceeds, thus ensuring a
sustainable transportation revenue stream for the future, states a release about
Current projections show Virginias transportation maintenance funds falling $364
million short in fiscal 2013, meaning that money will be transferred from the
arent secured.
The transportation proposal would also increase the vehicle registration fee by
$15, with the revenue going toward intercity passenger rail and transit, and impose
a $100 annual fee on alternative fuel vehicles, also to be used for transit.
Additionally, the tax on diesel fuel would go unchanged because heavy trucks have
a disproportionately large impact on the deterioration of Virginias highways,
states McDonnells announcement.
At the press conference, McDonnell noted that transportation and education are the
two prime focuses of his final year in office.
If the state government hasnt provided kids with world-class schools and roads,
McDonnell said, then the government has failed.
Transportation is a core function of government. Children cant get to school;
parents waste too much time in traffic; and businesses cant move their goods
without an adequate and efficient transportation system, McDonnell said.
Jonathan

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Office Telephone:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Office Telecopier:
Mobile Telephone:
Email:
301-622-3507
410-935-2599

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Transit
01-16-13
Personal and Confidential
Tom: While I did not think it was appropriate to make an issue of it yesterday
because it would have distracted the discussion from its main purpose, because
there were people present who should not be a part of the discussion, and because I
knew that I should give myself some time to be sure I was not reacting from anger,
I deeply resent Director Holmes statement yesterday in response to our discussion
about the ridership problem that I did not know what I am talking about. If he is
right then I should resign. If he is wrong, then I also should resign because I
cannot see how we can work together. In any event, I believe this statement is
indicative of not only his true feelings but also of several of his colleagues both
in MCDOT and on the Planning Boards staff. At our meeting with Director Holmes
and Al Roshdieh of last week, Director Holmes, in calling for us to be a team
expressed how he had great respect for each of us. I do not believe that is true.
Apparently his team approach is based on the assumption that the best way to form a
team is for us to not disagree with or challenge his view and approach to
addressing the subject. They do not want a team approach. They want to minimize
the influence and involvement of outsiders. We remain a nuisance to be dealt with
and circumvented.
I have been thinking about transit issues for more than 15 years. I
have been concerned about how we use certain kinds of data and modeling in planning
decisions for a long time. Every time I have tried to gain a specific and concrete
understanding of ridership modeling, as one example, I either am told the models
are proprietary or I get responses that are remarkably opaque. The extent to which
I dont know what I am talking about it is not for a lack of trying to know the
facts and understand the reasoning behind the governments approach to these
issues.
I dont see how I can continue to work with Director Holmes. I also
understand that there is little or no point in taking this up with the County
Executive or Chief Administrative Officer. I do not think giving decision-makers
an ultimatum is appropriate, and I also am sure that given a choice between
retaining me in this process and retaining Director Holmes that the County
Executive will retain Director Holmes.
As I have said many times in the past two years, ultimately it is the
leadership of County Executive Leggett that will result in this initiative being
successful. I do not know whether yesterdays public hearing is indicative of
anything or not but it seems to me that the outcome of the vote on whether or not
to invest $1 million in a few innocuous studies hangs in the balance and requires
executive involvement to ensure its success. It also appears that the initiative
will teeter on the edge for the next two years as the never ending process of
consideration of the numerous issues that will come before decision-makers moves
ahead. Again, without clear leadership there is a good chance that the initiative
will founder.
I began work on the Transit Task Force believing that establishing a

County-wide BRT system was a good idea. I ended work on the Task Force report
being convinced that implementing such a system was absolutely essential to the
future of our community. Nonetheless, because of a variety of factors, including
our unwillingness to confront and deal with numerous fictions, our avoidance of
confronting the real issues continues to jeopardize what we are trying to
accomplish. Again, as I have said before, I cannot point to a single major change
or big thing that was ever accomplished if it was lead by people who were not
enthusiastically in support of it and if they were unwilling to ruffle anyones
feathers.
As you have probably sensed, for a variety of reasons my energy level

has flagged on this project in the last few weeks. I have been trying to figure
out why and have attributed it to post-holiday fatigue. Director Holmes
comments of yesterday were a catalyst for clarifying what has been bothering me
about the status of this project for the last month or more. As much as I would
like to continue to be involved, given where we are and given the obvious fact of
whom the County Executive has entrusted with responsibility over this program, I
think it is probably time for you and I to discuss how I may gracefully step aside
from involvement in all aspects of this initiative.
Mark

To:
Jonathan Genn
Cc:
Mark Winston; Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Dan Wilhelm; Francine
Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: We're losing all the Rapid Transit Buzz to NoVa
yes, it does seem that VA is leading the charge .....
-- Tina
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Jonathan Genn <Jonathan@percontee.com> wrote:
How can we shake up Mont Co to wake up and get into the game so we dont
get left behind as irrelevant? If I were Rockefeller Foundation (or prospective
1.
Greater Greater Washington, Like a big city, Tysons will be a
transit hub, Dan Malouff, January 14, 2013
Tysons Corner has more office space than downtown Baltimore, Richmond, and
Norfolk put together. It should be the center its own large transit network. The
Silver Line and express buses on the Beltway HOT lanes are good first steps, but in
the long run Tysons is going to need more routes, connecting it to more places.
In recent years, planners in Virginia have begun to seriously consider a
Tysons-centric rapid transit network. It doesn't have a name, and isn't officially
In addition to the Silver Line <http://www.dullesmetro.com/> , HOT Lanes
Buses <http://www.vamegaprojects.com/commuter-solutions/tysons-bus-services/gotysons/tysons-express-woodbridge/> , and Tysons' internal circulation network
corridor.
It will be years before any of these additional routes are implemented, and
they could look very different from this map once they finally are. Details don't
exist yet, because at this point these are little more than ideas.
But to work as the urban place Fairfax County officials hope Tysons will
become, this is the sort of regional infrastructure it's going to need.
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/17353/like-a-big-city-tysons-willbe-a-transit-hub/ <http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/17353/like-a-big-citytysons-will-be-a-transit-hub/>

"I have to be able to negotiate an acceptable deal in terms of what we pay
for it," said Del. Joe May, R-Leesburg, who is leading the push to buy the road.
"I'm optimistic we're going to find a deal that works for both sides." The Greenway
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/morning_call/2013/01/virginialawmakers-consider-buying.html
3.
Loudoun Times-Mirror, Governor bares vast transportation proposal,
Trevor Baratko, January 8, 2013
One day before the Virginia General Assembly convenes for the final session
of his term, Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell unveiled a sweeping transportation
package Tuesday that scraps the states 17.5-cent-per-gallon gas tax and bumps
Virginias sales and use tax nearly a percent.
The proposal, which McDonnell highlighted at a press conference in Richmond,
pushes the 5-percent sales tax to 5.8 percent, a measure that would help provide
more than $3 billion in transportation for the commonwealth over the next five
years, according to the governors office.
If the governors proposal is adopted by state lawmakers something thats
months and many debates away Virginia would be the only state in the nation to
do away with the gas tax.
Dulles.
Moreover, McDonnell wants to dedicate an additional .25 cent of the existing
sales and use tax to transportation. Currently, transportation receives 0.5 cent of
the sales tax. The governor wants to phase in this share to 0.75 cent over five
years.
When combined with the 0.8 cent sales and use tax increase, transportation
will receive approximately one-quarter of sales and use tax proceeds, thus ensuring
a sustainable transportation revenue stream for the future, states a release about
Current projections show Virginias transportation maintenance funds falling
$364 million short in fiscal 2013, meaning that money will be transferred from the
arent secured.
The transportation proposal would also increase the vehicle registration fee
by $15, with the revenue going toward intercity passenger rail and transit, and
impose a $100 annual fee on alternative fuel vehicles, also to be used for transit.
Additionally, the tax on diesel fuel would go unchanged because heavy trucks
have a disproportionately large impact on the deterioration of Virginias
highways, states McDonnells announcement.
At the press conference, McDonnell noted that transportation and education

are the two prime focuses of his final year in office.
If the state government hasnt provided kids with world-class schools and
roads, McDonnell said, then the government has failed.
Transportation is a core function of government. Children cant get to
school; parents waste too much time in traffic; and businesses cant move their
goods without an adequate and efficient transportation system, McDonnell said.
Jonathan

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Office Telephone:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Office Telecopier:
Mobile Telephone:
Email:
301-622-3507
410-935-2599

To:
L. Mark Winston (mwinston@glazerwinston.com); Dan Wilhelm
(djwilhelm@verizon.net); Dan Wilhelm (dwilhelm@mitre.org); Tina Slater
Subject:
We're losing all the Rapid Transit Buzz to NoVa
How can we shake up Mont Co to wake up and get into the game so we dont get left
behind as irrelevant? If I were Rockefeller Foundation (or prospective
1.
Greater Greater Washington, Like a big city, Tysons will be a transit
hub, Dan Malouff, January 14, 2013
Tysons Corner has more office space than downtown Baltimore, Richmond, and Norfolk
put together. It should be the center its own large transit network. The Silver
Line and express buses on the Beltway HOT lanes are good first steps, but in the
long run Tysons is going to need more routes, connecting it to more places.
In recent years, planners in Virginia have begun to seriously consider a Tysonscentric rapid transit network. It doesn't have a name, and isn't officially
In addition to the Silver Line <http://www.dullesmetro.com/> , HOT Lanes Buses
<http://www.vamegaprojects.com/commuter-solutions/tysons-bus-services/gotysons/tysons-express-woodbridge/> , and Tysons' internal circulation network
corridor.
It will be years before any of these additional routes are implemented, and they
could look very different from this map once they finally are. Details don't exist
yet, because at this point these are little more than ideas.
But to work as the urban place Fairfax County officials hope Tysons will become,
this is the sort of regional infrastructure it's going to need.
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/17353/like-a-big-city-tysons-will-be-atransit-hub/ <http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/17353/like-a-big-citytysons-will-be-a-transit-hub/>

"I have to be able to negotiate an acceptable deal in terms of what we pay for it,"
said Del. Joe May, R-Leesburg, who is leading the push to buy the road. "I'm
optimistic we're going to find a deal that works for both sides." The Greenway
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/morning_call/2013/01/virginia-lawmakersconsider-buying.html
3.
Loudoun Times-Mirror, Governor bares vast transportation proposal, Trevor
Baratko, January 8, 2013
One day before the Virginia General Assembly convenes for the final session of his
term, Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell unveiled a sweeping transportation package
Tuesday that scraps the states 17.5-cent-per-gallon gas tax and bumps Virginias
sales and use tax nearly a percent.
The proposal, which McDonnell highlighted at a press conference in Richmond, pushes
the 5-percent sales tax to 5.8 percent, a measure that would help provide more than
$3 billion in transportation for the commonwealth over the next five years,
according to the governors office.
If the governors proposal is adopted by state lawmakers something thats months
and many debates away Virginia would be the only state in the nation to do away
with the gas tax.
Dulles.
Moreover, McDonnell wants to dedicate an additional .25 cent of the existing sales
and use tax to transportation. Currently, transportation receives 0.5 cent of the
sales tax. The governor wants to phase in this share to 0.75 cent over five years.
When combined with the 0.8 cent sales and use tax increase, transportation will
receive approximately one-quarter of sales and use tax proceeds, thus ensuring a
sustainable transportation revenue stream for the future, states a release about
Current projections show Virginias transportation maintenance funds falling $364
million short in fiscal 2013, meaning that money will be transferred from the
arent secured.
The transportation proposal would also increase the vehicle registration fee by
$15, with the revenue going toward intercity passenger rail and transit, and impose
a $100 annual fee on alternative fuel vehicles, also to be used for transit.
Additionally, the tax on diesel fuel would go unchanged because heavy trucks have
a disproportionately large impact on the deterioration of Virginias highways,
states McDonnells announcement.
At the press conference, McDonnell noted that transportation and education are the
two prime focuses of his final year in office.
If the state government hasnt provided kids with world-class schools and roads,
McDonnell said, then the government has failed.
Transportation is a core function of government. Children cant get to school;
parents waste too much time in traffic; and businesses cant move their goods
without an adequate and efficient transportation system, McDonnell said.
Jonathan

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Office Telephone:
Office Telecopier:
Mobile Telephone:
Email:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)

301-622-3507
410-935-2599

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Rockefeller Foundation notification of overdue reports
Tom:
I guess we need to deal with this.
Mark
________________________________
From: ogm_notifications@rockfound.org [mailto:ogm_notifications@rockfound.org]
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: mboone@mcra-md.com
Subject: Rockefeller Foundation notification of overdue reports
The Rockefeller
Foundation<http://abcwidgets.createsend.com/ti/19200167/banner.gif>
01/15/2013
Dear Mr. L. Mark Winston:
This is in reference to grant number 2011 TRA 328 to Montgomery County Revenue
Authority in support of a series of critical studies and analyses related to the
Bus Rapid Transit system being considered for Montgomery County, Maryland by the
County Executives Transit Task Force.
We are sending this email to notify you that the Office of Grants Management has
not received one or more reports on the use of the funds for the above-referenced
grant. Please refer to your grant award letter for details on this grant's
reporting requirements. Please note that in order to be processed, submissions must
be clearly labeled with the grant number and report type as referenced in the
Milestones & Deliverables table of your grant agreement.
We show that the following reports are currently overdue:
Report
Additional Details
Due Date
DateRange
Financial Report
n/a
09/30/2012
Overdue 46 days
01/01/2012 - 09/30/2012
Narrative Report
n/a
09/30/2012
Overdue 46 days
10/01/2011 - 09/30/2012
Please refer to your grant agreement for full details on what is required.
Specific instructions for narrative reports: If your grant agreement has a
paragraph entitled "The Grant in Context" and you were provided an addendum
describing the Foundation's initiative strategy, please be sure to indicate in the
narrative report how the work completed under the grant is contributing to the
outcomes and impact the Foundation's initiative is seeking to achieve. We are very
keen to hear your perspective on your work in the context of the Foundation's
strategy, so that we can continue to learn together to achieve the impact we
collectively seek.
You may direct inquiries to the attention of Jennifer Cooper, Office of Grants
Management, JCooper@rockfound.org.
All reports should be submitted to grantreports@rockfound.org. Please note that in
order to be processed, submissions must be clearly labeled with the grant number
and report type as referenced in the Milestones & Deliverables table of your grant
agreement.
If you have already submitted the report(s), please forward another copy, with our
apologies for the inconvenience.
Sincerely,
THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION
Office of Grants Management
Please note that the email address from which this notification came is not a
working inbox and is not monitored. Again, please direct all correspondence to
JCooper@rockfound.org.

To:
'djwilhelm@verizon.net'; 'fwaters@Lerner.com'
Cc:
'Jonathan@percontee.com'; 'dwilhelm@mitre.org'; Street, Thomas;
'slater.tina@gmail.com'
Subject:
Re: CFT, etc.
I will work on this in morning and schedule meetings. Thx.
________________________________
From: Dan Wilhelm
To: 'Francine Waters' ; L. Mark Winston
Cc: 'Jonathan Genn' ; 'Wilhelm, Dan' ; 'Street, Thomas' ; 'Tina Slater'
Sent: Mon Jan 14 18:26:28 2013
Subject: RE: CFT, etc.
Added mine
From: Francine Waters [mailto:fwaters@Lerner.com]

To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Jonathan Genn; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas; Tina Slater
Hi Mark,
Heres my matrix
Thanks,
Francine
FRANCINE E. WATERS

Eighth Floor
301.692.2563 direct tel

301.692.2631 direct fax
Fwaters@Lerner.com
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Jonathan Genn; Francine Waters; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas
Subject: Re: CFT, etc.
UPDATE -- I've made some modifications to my entries in the spreadsheet; MODIFIED

version is attached. (Jonathan -- very good tool you created!; there's also a
website called www.doodle.com, which can produce a survey of possible meeting dates
& people enter their availability; I've filled out many, but created non.)
--- Tina
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:39 PM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>
wrote:
Jonathan:
Thanks.
Mark
________________________________
To: Tina Slater; L. Mark Winston
Cc: Francine Waters; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas
Mark:
I anticipate that your scheduling request may reach higher mathematics/physics

(that only Dan can figure out!) . If it might be of any help to you, I have
attached a suggested matrix to determine when we all might be able to meet. If
each of us fills out the attached spreadsheet (X for not available, and o for
open/available) and sends it around, then maybe our esteemed Chair can find a
mutually convenient date and time for our meetings.
I already inserted into the attached matrix Tinas and my availability.
Good Luck!
Jonathan

To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Francine Waters; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Re late afternoon & early evening for meetings --
Afternoons unavailable: -I'm generally unavailable Mon, Tues, & Wed afternoons 4:00 to 6:00 pm (I teach art)
However, week of Feb. 18, I should be available all afternoons Mon - Fri (One
caveat -- if we have any snow days in the 6-week session before then, I'll use that
week to do art lesson makeups).
Then starting week of February 25, I'm back to teaching Mon/Tues/Wed 4:00 to 6:00
pm ....
Evenings unavailable -Week of Jan 14 -- Tu 1/15, Wed 1/16, Thu 1/17

Week of Jan 21 -- Wed 1/23
Week of Jan 28 -- Mon 1/28,
Thu 1/31
Week of Feb 1 -Week of Feb 11 -- Tu 2/12, possibly Th 2/14 (for TPB/CAC mtg, but there's been talk
of changing the date due to Valentine's day....)
Week of Feb 18 -- Wed 2/20
--- Tina
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:37 AM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>

wrote:
01-14-13
Ladies and Gentlemen: The scheduling window that I recently requested has passed
so I need to get good dates from you again. Sorry about the inconvenience. Please
give me dates for the next 30 days when you are not available to meet either late
afternoons or early evenings.
There are two major agenda items that we need to address. The first is
to begin interviewing candidates for the position of Executive Director of CFT. I
have recently circulated resumes. My inclination is to arrange interviews for
those people and also to reach out for additional candidates. The second agenda
item is to revisit the CFT program. I will be working on a revised program
proposal for the group and will circulate it as soon as it is ready.
Please get me your schedules.
Thanks.
Mark
****ATTENTION****
To:
'Francine Waters'; 'L. Mark Winston'
Cc:
'Jonathan Genn'; 'Wilhelm, Dan'; Street, Thomas; 'Tina Slater'
Subject:
RE: CFT, etc.
Attachments:
Copy of Scheduling Matrix - CfRT - Jan and Feb 2013FEW.xlsx
Added mine

To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Jonathan Genn; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas; Tina Slater
Hi Mark,
Heres my matrix
Thanks,
Francine
FRANCINE E. WATERS

Eighth Floor
301.692.2563 direct tel
301.692.2631 direct fax
Fwaters@Lerner.com
To: L. Mark Winston

--- Tina
wrote:
Jonathan:
Thanks.
Mark
_____
Mark:

Good Luck!
Jonathan

To: L. Mark Winston
pm ....

Thu 1/31
--- Tina

wrote:
01-14-13
Thanks.
Mark
****ATTENTION****

To:
L. Mark Winston
Cc:
Jonathan Genn; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas; Tina Slater
Subject:
RE: CFT, etc.
Attachments:
Scheduling Matrix - CfRT - Jan and Feb 2013FEW.xlsx;
Hi Mark,
Heres my matrix
Thanks,
Francine
FRANCINE E. WATERS

Eighth Floor
301.692.2563 direct tel
301.692.2631 direct fax
Fwaters@Lerner.com
To: L. Mark Winston

--- Tina
wrote:
Jonathan:
Thanks.
Mark
________________________________
Mark:

Good Luck!
Jonathan

To: L. Mark Winston
pm ....

Thu 1/31
--- Tina

wrote:
01-14-13
Thanks.
Mark
****ATTENTION****
To:
L. Mark Winston
Cc:
Jonathan Genn; Francine Waters; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: CFT, etc.
Attachments:
Scheduling Matrix - CfRT - Jan and Feb 2013.xlsx
--- Tina

wrote:
Jonathan:
Thanks.
Mark
________________________________
Mark:
I anticipate that your scheduling request may reach higher

mathematics/physics (that only Dan can figure out!) . If it might be of any help
to you, I have attached a suggested matrix to determine when we all might be able
to meet. If each of us fills out the attached spreadsheet (X for not available,
and o for open/available) and sends it around, then maybe our esteemed Chair can
find a mutually convenient date and time for our meetings.
Good Luck!
Jonathan

To: L. Mark Winston
Afternoons unavailable: -I'm generally unavailable Mon, Tues, & Wed afternoons 4:00 to 6:00 pm (I
teach art)
Then starting week of February 25, I'm back to teaching Mon/Tues/Wed 4:00 to
6:00 pm ....

Thu 1/31
Week of Feb 1 -Week of Feb 11 -- Tu 2/12, possibly Th 2/14 (for TPB/CAC mtg, but there's
been talk of changing the date due to Valentine's day....)
--- Tina
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:37 AM, L. Mark Winston

01-14-13
Ladies and Gentlemen: The scheduling window that I recently requested has
passed so I need to get good dates from you again. Sorry about the
inconvenience. Please give me dates for the next 30 days when you are not
available to meet either late afternoons or early evenings.
There are two major agenda items that we need to address. The
first is to begin interviewing candidates for the position of Executive Director of
CFT. I have recently circulated resumes. My inclination is to arrange interviews
for those people and also to reach out for additional candidates. The second
agenda item is to revisit the CFT program. I will be working on a revised program
Thanks.
Mark

To:
'Jonathan Genn'; Tina Slater
Cc:
Francine Waters; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: CFT, etc.
Jonathan:
Thanks.
Mark
________________________________
Mark:

Good Luck!
Jonathan

To: L. Mark Winston
pm ....

Thu 1/31
--- Tina

wrote:
01-14-13
Mark
Thanks.

To:
Tina Slater; L. Mark Winston
Cc:
Francine Waters; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: CFT, etc.
Attachments:
Scheduling Matrix - CfRT - Jan and Feb 2013.xlsx
Mark:

Good Luck!
Jonathan

To: L. Mark Winston
pm ....

Thu 1/31
--- Tina

wrote:
01-14-13

Thanks.
Mark

To:
Jonathan Genn
Cc:
Dan Wilhelm; Francine Waters; L. Mark Winston; Street, Thomas; Stewart
Schwartz
Subject:
Re: If you haven't written your Jan 15 letter/testimony yet.....here's
a good Post article
Jonathan -Thank you for this background on how the Fairfax Supervisors were able to take this
bold step & use the cover of the VA General Assembly to do it. Awesome!!
--- Tina
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Jonathan Genn <Jonathan@percontee.com> wrote:
Thank you, Tina.
As I understand it, the Supervisors originally concluded much as our Transit

Task Force concluded --- even though it would be much more politically palatable to
tax just the commercial properties: (a) the amount of money needed to be raised was
too substantial and would result in too disproportionate a tax on just commercial
property (and be an economic disincentive for the commercial property owners to
even redevelop, in which case, the added taxes would not be raised in the first
instance); and (b) all property owners would share in the benefit, so all property
owners should share in the tax burden (which would be proportionate and
progressive, because the tax would be based upon the differing assessed values of
all the properties). Although I did not see that they specifically adopted the
Tina Slater compelling reasoning --- namely, that mobility for everyone this is a
community-wide benefit just like schools are, so it should be taxed community-wide
just like schools are (rather than under a user fee principle) --- I think the
Tina Slater reasoning was implicit in their conclusions.
Of course, when the Supervisors had their public hearing to discuss their
well-reasoned principles, the residential community raised very vocal objections,
essentially wanting the other guy (namely, the commercial property owners) to
bear all the tax burden. Like so many Tea Party, No-Tax advocates, they dont mind
enjoying the benefits of greater mobility in their community, they just dont want
to pay for it, and try to make up arguments why the other guys should pay. And
because the residents vote the elected officials in or out (whereas the businesses
do not cast votes), the Supervisors partially capitulated to the very vocal
residents who opposed any tax on residential properties, saying that they would
delay taking a vote on the funding program until they could see if the VA General
Assembly would change Virginias laws that currently prohibit different taxation on
commercial property versus residential property (similar to Marylands prohibition
against treating tax on commercial different from tax on residential). The
Supervisors thus had some political cover, arguing that what the vocal residents
wanted was prohibited by VA law. The VA General Assembly said they were not
inclined to make any changes to the Commonwealths laws. So the Supervisors, using
VA law as some political cover, essentially said (a) that the Supervisors needed to
take a vote on how to fund transit in Tysons and (b) that the VA General Assembly
would not allow them to tax commercial and residential differently. The
Supervisors then voted in favor of the tax formula that taxed residential and
commercial uniformly. The Supervisors deflected some if the ire of the residents
by essentially saying, if you residents can get the VA General Assembly to change
the law, then we Supervisors might reconsider the taxing structure; but until then,
we cant wait any longer on what we need to do. [You might also recall last month
I circulated an Op-ed letter by a Tyson Corner resident, commenting that the tax
was reasonable to assess on residential, because the value of their homes would
likely go up more on account of the greater mobility than without it, so it is a
good investment in the value of their own homes.]
Tina, you are very modest about not understanding the finances. [We all know
that you do!] But I know you see all the merits our reasoning --- that because
treating our transformational transit network as a shared value-added benefit to
everyone in the community, it is fair to have everyone in the community share in
the burden to fund it. What Fairfax has shown us is that our reasoning is the
sound, even though it will politically challenging to implement. [And one would
think that Montgomery County was at least as progressive as Fairfax County; but
maybe not!]
Hope this explanation helps your thinking.
See yall tomorrow.
Jonathan
P.S. --- Again, Tina, youre very humble about knowing finances; but I am
pleased that you thought my written testimony was easy to understand and you liked
the point being made about how financially unwise it would be to create further
delay when interest rates are so low today.

To: Jonathan Genn
Cc: Dan Wilhelm; Francine Waters; L. Mark Winston; Tom Street; Stewart
Schwartz
Subject: Re: If you haven't written your Jan 15 letter/testimony
yet.....here's a good Post article
Jonathan --
No I hadn't realized that Fairfax was apply a uniform tax on residential &
commercial -- that seems very bold. (I'm sorry, finances and physics are pretty
much both too complicated for my brain, so I shy away from them, and so I
appreciate you pointing this out).
Also, you wrote an awesome letter to the county council for the Jan 15
discussion --- in that case (even though it's about finances), I did get your
message to strike while the iron is hot and the interest rates are low!!
Impressive letter.
--- Tina
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Jonathan Genn <Jonathan@percontee.com>
wrote:
Yes. And, as you may have seen, the Supervisors voted for a financing plan
that taxes residents at equal rates as commercial.
Jonathan

and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office:
301-622-0100
Mobile:
410-935-2599
Email:
Sent from my iPhone

If you haven't written your testimony/letter for the Council on the $1
million appropriation for RTS study, there's some "data to mine" in today's Post
has a very good article entitled: "Tysons' transit vision: The Bus" Fairfax, our
county's "nemesis", is moving forward quickly with plans for heavy TransitOriented-Development around Tysons (jobs will double by 2050, while the population
will increase 5-fold). Planners are relying on express buses and circulator buses
to shuttle people into and around Tysons. If Fairfax is finding new ways to
increase bus usage for its residents, maybe Montgomery County should be seriously
looking at doing the same.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/planning-officials-see-buses-atcenter-of-transit-network-serving-tysons-corner/2013/01/12/94749d5c-4ba5-11e2-a6a6aabac85e8036_story.html
--- Tina

To:
Tina Slater
Cc:
Schwartz
Subject:
RE: If you haven't written your Jan 15 letter/testimony yet.....here's
a good Post article
Thank you, Tina.
As I understand it, the Supervisors originally concluded much as our Transit Task
Force concluded --- even though it would be much more politically palatable to tax
just the commercial properties: (a) the amount of money needed to be raised was too
substantial and would result in too disproportionate a tax on just commercial
property (and be an economic disincentive for the commercial property owners to
even redevelop, in which case, the added taxes would not be raised in the first
instance); and (b) all property owners would share in the benefit, so all property
owners should share in the tax burden (which would be proportionate and
progressive, because the tax would be based upon the differing assessed values of
all the properties). Although I did not see that they specifically adopted the
Tina Slater compelling reasoning --- namely, that mobility for everyone this is a
community-wide benefit just like schools are, so it should be taxed community-wide
just like schools are (rather than under a user fee principle) --- I think the
Tina Slater reasoning was implicit in their conclusions.
Of course, when the Supervisors had their public hearing to discuss their wellreasoned principles, the residential community raised very vocal objections,
essentially wanting the other guy (namely, the commercial property owners) to
bear all the tax burden. Like so many Tea Party, No-Tax advocates, they dont mind
enjoying the benefits of greater mobility in their community, they just dont want
to pay for it, and try to make up arguments why the other guys should pay. And
because the residents vote the elected officials in or out (whereas the businesses
do not cast votes), the Supervisors partially capitulated to the very vocal
residents who opposed any tax on residential properties, saying that they would
delay taking a vote on the funding program until they could see if the VA General
Assembly would change Virginias laws that currently prohibit different taxation on
commercial property versus residential property (similar to Marylands prohibition
against treating tax on commercial different from tax on residential). The
Supervisors thus had some political cover, arguing that what the vocal residents
wanted was prohibited by VA law. The VA General Assembly said they were not
inclined to make any changes to the Commonwealths laws. So the Supervisors, using
VA law as some political cover, essentially said (a) that the Supervisors needed to
take a vote on how to fund transit in Tysons and (b) that the VA General Assembly
would not allow them to tax commercial and residential differently. The
Supervisors then voted in favor of the tax formula that taxed residential and
commercial uniformly. The Supervisors deflected some if the ire of the residents
by essentially saying, if you residents can get the VA General Assembly to change
the law, then we Supervisors might reconsider the taxing structure; but until then,
we cant wait any longer on what we need to do. [You might also recall last month
I circulated an Op-ed letter by a Tyson Corner resident, commenting that the tax
was reasonable to assess on residential, because the value of their homes would
likely go up more on account of the greater mobility than without it, so it is a
good investment in the value of their own homes.]
Tina, you are very modest about not understanding the finances. [We all know that
you do!] But I know you see all the merits our reasoning --- that because treating
our transformational transit network as a shared value-added benefit to everyone in
the community, it is fair to have everyone in the community share in the burden to
fund it. What Fairfax has shown us is that our reasoning is the sound, even though
it will politically challenging to implement. [And one would think that Montgomery
County was at least as progressive as Fairfax County; but maybe not!]
Hope this explanation helps your thinking.
See yall tomorrow.
Jonathan
P.S. --- Again, Tina, youre very humble about knowing finances; but I am pleased
that you thought my written testimony was easy to understand and you liked the
point being made about how financially unwise it would be to create further delay
when interest rates are so low today.

To: Jonathan Genn
Cc: Dan Wilhelm; Francine Waters; L. Mark Winston; Tom Street; Stewart Schwartz
Subject: Re: If you haven't written your Jan 15 letter/testimony yet.....here's a
good Post article
Jonathan --
No I hadn't realized that Fairfax was apply a uniform tax on residential &
Also, you wrote an awesome letter to the county council for the Jan 15 discussion
--- in that case (even though it's about finances), I did get your message to
strike while the iron is hot and the interest rates are low!! Impressive letter.
--- Tina
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Jonathan Genn <Jonathan@percontee.com> wrote:
Yes. And, as you may have seen, the Supervisors voted for a financing plan that
taxes residents at equal rates as commercial.
Jonathan

and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office:
301-622-0100
Mobile:
410-935-2599
Email:
Sent from my iPhone

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/planning-officials-see-buses-at-centerof-transit-network-serving-tysons-corner/2013/01/12/94749d5c-4ba5-11e2-a6a6aabac85e8036_story.html
--- Tina

To:
Jonathan Genn
Cc:
Schwartz
Subject:
a good Post article
Jonathan -No I hadn't realized that Fairfax was apply a uniform tax on residential &
Also, you wrote an awesome letter to the county council for the Jan 15 discussion
--- in that case (even though it's about finances), I did get your message to
strike while the iron is hot and the interest rates are low!! Impressive letter.
--- Tina
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Jonathan Genn <Jonathan@percontee.com> wrote:
Yes.
And, as you may have seen, the Supervisors voted for a financing plan
that taxes residents at equal rates as commercial.

Jonathan
and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/planning-officials-see-buses-atcenter-of-transit-network-serving-tysons-corner/2013/01/12/94749d5c-4ba5-11e2-a6a6aabac85e8036_story.html
--- Tina
To:
Tina Slater
Cc:
Schwartz
Subject:
a good Post article
Yes. And, as you may have seen, the Supervisors voted for a financing plan that
taxes residents at equal rates as commercial.
Jonathan
and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/planning-officials-see-buses-at-centerof-transit-network-serving-tysons-corner/2013/01/12/94749d5c-4ba5-11e2-a6a6aabac85e8036_story.html
--- Tina
To:
Dan Wilhelm; Francine Waters; Jonathan Genn; L. Mark Winston; Street, Thomas
Cc:
Stewart Schwartz
Subject:
If you haven't written your Jan 15 letter/testimony yet.....here's a
good Post article
If you haven't written your testimony/letter for the Council on the $1 million
appropriation for RTS study, there's some "data to mine" in today's Post has a very
good article entitled: "Tysons' transit vision: The Bus" Fairfax, our county's
"nemesis", is moving forward quickly with plans for heavy Transit-OrientedDevelopment around Tysons (jobs will double by 2050, while the population will
increase 5-fold). Planners are relying on express buses and circulator buses to
shuttle people into and around Tysons. If Fairfax is finding new ways to increase
bus usage for its residents, maybe Montgomery County should be seriously looking at
doing the same.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/planning-officials-see-buses-at-center-oftransit-network-serving-tysons-corner/2013/01/12/94749d5c-4ba5-11e2-a6a6aabac85e8036_story.html
--- Tina
To:
Subject:
Good Rpt -- Why You Need Mixed Income Housing Near Transit
The Planning Departments Development will be Key to getting more people using our
RTSystem. Good report -- Tina
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/resource-center/books-and-reports/2009/tod-201mixed-income-housing-near-transit-increasing-affordability-with-location-
efficiency/
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 4:54 PM
To:
Montgomery County Council
Cc:
Navarro's Office, Councilmember; Rice's Office, Councilmember; Berliner's
Office, Councilmember; Elrich's Office, Councilmember; Ervin's Office,
Councilmember; Floreen's Office, Councilmember; Leventhal's Office, Councilmember;
Riemer's Office, Councilmember
Subject:
January 15 Hearing on $1MM Supplemental CIP Appropriation for Rapid
Transit Studies
Attachments:
RTSC-JMG ltr to County Council - 011113.pdf
Dear Council President Navarro and Members of the County Council:
I respectfully submit my attached written testimony relating to the January 15
County Council Hearing on the County Executive's request for a $1MM supplemental
appropriation to the FY13 CIP budget.
Because the available slots for oral testimony appear already to have been filled,
I plan to be in attendance for the hearing and thus available to answer any
questions that may arise in connection with my attached written testimony.
Many thanks, in advance, for all of your time and consideration of this matter.
Best wishes to everyone.
Jonathan
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Fax: 301-622-3507
Cell: 410-935-2599
To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Hearing next week
See below.
________________________________
To: Kelly Blynn; L. Mark Winston
Cc: Wilhelm, Dan; Francine Waters; Alex Posorske; Tina Slater; Dan Wilhelm
Subject: RE: Hearing next week
Tina indicated she is available this afternoon for a TelCon.

she has another TelCon at 1pm.
Francine mentioned
Should we schedule for 2:30pm today? Please confirm (especially Francine) that
2:30pm today would work. I also think Marilyn Balcolme, David Hauck, and Tom
Street should be invited to join the conversation, as well as David McDonough, if
he plans on testifying orally or in writing.
Again, dial-in info:
1-866-783-5356
Code: 7500107#
Thanks.
Jonathan

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Telephone:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Fax:
Cell:
301-622-3507
Email:
410-935-2599
________________________________
From: Kelly Blynn [kelly@smartergrowth.net]
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Jonathan Genn; Wilhelm, Dan; Francine Waters; Alex Posorske; Tina Slater; Dan
Wilhelm
Subject: Re: Hearing next week
Yes, Stewart has a slot, and I know David Hauck does as well - that's all I know of
in addition.
Kelly Blynn
o: (202) 675-0016 ext. 127 | c: (610) 220-5378
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:23 PM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>

wrote:
Kelly: I am amazed that it is only 6 slots and frankly I find it hard to
believe. The person who took my name never mentioned that. Does CSG have a slot?
Mark
________________________________
To: Jonathan Genn
Cc: L. Mark Winston; Wilhelm, Dan; Francine Waters; Alex Posorske; Tina Slater; Dan
Wilhelm
Wow, there is really only six slots? Well, sounds like we've got a fair number of
positive voices in there, so that's good!
Kelly Blynn
o: (202) 675-0016 ext. 127 | c: (610) 220-5378
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Jonathan Genn <Jonathan@percontee.com> wrote:
Mark and Dan:
I understand your comments. But I just wanted to be sure that each one of us
didn't say the same thing in testimony, because then the Council would likely tune
us out. But if each of us said something succinct, but on a different topic or
point, then, as a whole, our testimony would be more effective for the Council.
As it turns out, however, I will not get time to testify. I heard back from the
County Council office that the 6 slots are filled. So it's moot for me.
I plan, therefore, to send in my written comments. Again, to be sure that our

points are not repetitive, I propose to send my written comments on the following
topic in support of why the CE's request should be funded, and funded now:
General Topic:
The cost of delay
Subtopic points:
1. By far, the greatest danger of delaying this major capital project is the risk
that the long term interest rates will be higher when the County actually embarks
on the major project. We are now in the midst of at least a 50+ year historic low
on long-term interest rates. And, by far, the greatest economic pressures are
mounting for interest rates to rise, not fall further. Any delay in advancing just
the first phase of this major capital project risks adding millions of dollars to
the long-term costs of the project solely on account of higher interest rates.
As
the attached spreadsheet demonstrates, SOLELY ON ACCOUNT OF A 0.25% HIGHER INTEREST
RATE RESULTING FROM A DELAY, on financng of One Billion Dollars over a 25 year
period for this major capital project, that delay adds more than $1.66 Million of
additional interest cost and more than $43.7 Million dollars of interest over the
life of the loan. So, for example, if phase one of a county-wide rapid transit
network were to require financing $1.5 Billion and interest rates were to be 0.5%
higher due to the delay, the ADDED COST of financing --- solely attributable to
that higher interest rate resulting from that delay --- would be an additional
~$5.04 Million per year and an additional ~$126 Million over the life of the loan.
(Of course, no one has a perfectly clear crystal ball of what interest rates will
be in the future, so it is even possible that the pent-up presures for higher
interest rates results in an even more dramatic increase in interest rates.) It
would thus be financially irresponsible to presume that there is no cost
attributable for delaying progress on this major capital project.
2. Delaying to do the proposed work at a later time will likely add cost by not
being able to take advantage of today's slower economic activity when contractors
are often more willing to do the same work for less now than what they would charge
to do the same work in the future when they have more projects in their pipeline.
It would thus be a mistake to presume that the same work could be contracted for at
the same price in the future, as it would be if we proceed now.
3. Delaying to contract for this same work when contractors are busier in the
future also creates added risk that the same work cannot be completed as timely as
when the contractors have less work in their pipeline now. And the longer a
project takes, the greater the overall costs become for the project (at a minimum
equal to the "opportunity costs" associated by that delay).
Accordingly, at least for this 3-dimentional danger of delay, I respectfully

suggest that the County Council approve the County Executive's request for funding
these needed studies for phase one of this major capital project, and do so NOW.
I welcome from each of you a critique of what I propose in my written testimony. I

have attached a copy of my spreadsheet that demonstrates the cost of delay solely
attributable to an increase in interest rates due to the delay.
Finally, at least as it relates to me, I don't need to coordinate my oral

testimony, because I will not be testifying.
Thanks.
Jonathan

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Telephone:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Fax:
Cell:
301-622-3507
Email:
410-935-2599
________________________________
To: 'Wilhelm, Dan'; Jonathan Genn
Cc: Kelly Blynn; Francine Waters; Alex Posorske; Tina Slater; Stewart Schwartz;
'Dan Wilhelm'
As I have said previously in emails, I generally agree with Dan that our testimony
should be focused and directed to simple support of the proposed supplemental.
From my perspective we need to move ahead as proposed by the County executive even
though a number of important issues remain undecided because if we defer the
studies we will lose time on the entire issue when those subjects have been
addressed. When looking at the specific proposed studies, the work product will be
valuable regardless of the scope of the first phase.
________________________________
To: 'Jonathan Genn'; L. Mark Winston
Cc: Kelly Blynn; Francine Waters; Alex Posorske; Tina Slater; Stewart Schwartz;
'Dan Wilhelm'
I thought we had talked about this briefly. I think that we largely need to support
it. That is about all I am thinking of saying-
The requested CIP funding is the next step toward development of the RTV network
and start to address congestion. The studies will provide answers to many questions
the Council and others have. Delaying the set of studies will fund will just delay
the date when the first phase of the RTV network can be implemented. Therefore
strongly recommend the CIP requested be funded now.

To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Kelly Blynn; Francine Waters; Alex Posorske; Tina Slater; Wilhelm, Dan; Stewart
Schwartz
Have we coordinated what each of us will/should say (so we are appropriately

targeted and not repetitive)? I presume not, because I haven't heard any further
details. And presuming not, should we plan to have a TelCon (say, sometime on this
Friday) to so coordinate?
Please advise.
Thanks.
Jonathan

and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office:
301-622-0100
Mobile:
410-935-2599
Email:
Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 9, 2013, at 2:48 PM, "L. Mark Winston" <mwinston@glazerwinston.com> wrote:
Kelly: Happy New Year. I understand that several of our members and some
others plan to testify. I am waiting for a call now confirming a spot to testify
briefly myself. Thanks. Mark
<image003.jpg>
________________________________

To: Francine Waters
Cc: L. Mark Winston; Alex Posorske; Jonathan Genn; Tina Slater; Wilhelm, Dan;
Stewart Schwartz
Subject: Hearing next week
Hey everyone,
Just
Tuesday at
the issue,
If you are
wanted to see if anyone is planning to testify at the hearing next

1:30pm in Rockville? We think it's a pretty important litmus test for
and fills in key gaps in the other studies currently being conducted.
able, please call 240-777-7803 to reserve your spot.
If you have additional ideas of people from the task force or otherwise that
might be willing to testify, please do encourage them! Thanks and look forward to
seeing you all soon,
Kelly Blynn
o: (202) 675-0016 ext. 127 | c: (610) 220-5378
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Kelly Blynn <kelly@smartergrowth.net>

wrote:
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to follow up to say it was excellent to meet everyone last

week, and thank you all for your helpful input into the poll - we're very much
looking forward to seeing what the results are in January.
I wanted to remind everyone who can to sign up to testify at the January 15th
hearing re: the supplemental funding request, as I think it'll be important for our
voices to be there, regardless of who you want to testify on behalf of (task force
or otherwise). The hearing is at 1:30pm, and you can call 240-777-7803 to reserve
your three minute slot.
Thanks, and happy holidays!
Kelly Blynn
o: (202) 675-0016 ext. 127 | c: (610) 220-5378
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Francine Waters <fwaters@lerner.com> wrote:
Dear Mark/Alex
I am unable to attend the meeting on Friday due to a family commitment.

appropriate, however, I could possibly join by phone while in transit.
Please let me know
Thanks,
Francine
FRANCINE E. WATERS

Eighth Floor
301.692.2563 direct tel
301.692.2631 direct fax
Fwaters@Lerner.com
If
<image004.gif> <http://www.lerner.com/>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 7:42 AM
To: 'Alex Posorske'
Cc: Jonathan Genn; Tina Slater; Wilhelm, Dan; Francine Waters; Kelly Blynn;
Stewart Schwartz
Subject: RE: CSG-CFT Meeting?
To: All: This is just a reminder that we have a meeting scheduled for this
coming Friday, December 14th at 11:30am in my office. Please let me know if you
think it makes sense for us to order sandwiches and, if so, what you would like.
(We have a Booeymongers across the street.) Mark
<image005.jpg>
________________________________
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:21 PM
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Jonathan Genn; Tina Slater; Wilhelm, Dan; Francine Waters; Kelly Blynn;
Stewart Schwartz
Subject: Re: CSG-CFT Meeting?
Hi Mark et al:
Let's say an 11:30 a.m. meeting on December 14th at Mark's office?
Thanks!
Alex
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:16 PM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>
wrote:
Alex: I just got off a conference call of the CFT Executive Committee during
which, among other things, we agreed on a date to get together with CSG
representatives. We propose December 14th at my office. When would it be
convenient for you to schedule it? Thanks and we look forward to getting
together and, in particular, to meeting Ms. Blynn. Mark
<image005.jpg>
________________________________

Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:15 PM
To: L. Mark Winston; Jonathan Genn; Tina Slater; Wilhelm, Dan; Francine
Waters
Cc: Stewart Schwartz; Kelly Blynn
Subject: CSG-CFT Meeting?
Greetings all:
I hope everyone had a great holiday!
We are thinking that it would be great to have a catch up meeting soon. With
the completion of our focus groups (we expect to have analysis back next week), the
funding ask from the County Executive's office the other week, and the fleshing out
of our outreach plan for 2013, there's a lot we'd like to get your feedback on. In
addition, our new Montgomery County-focused staffer Kelly Blynn has started and
we'd love to get everyone introduced!
With the holidays coming up I know that everyone's schedule has gotten rather
busy, so we could do a call if there aren't any good times for a face to face
meeting. Currently we've got some time on Tuesday December 4, Monday December 10,
and Friday December14 for an in-person meeting and are more flexible for a call.
Let us know what you think!
In addition, for your reference, I've included a link below to the email that
we sent out to our Montgomery County list this morning, thanking the County
Executive for submitting the request for funding for studying the Phase I BRT
routes:
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/2041/t/0/blastContent.jsp?
email_blast_KEY=1232167
Best,
(202) 675-0016 ext. 126
(202) 675-6992 - fax
Weve moved! Please note our new info!

(202) 675-0016 ext. 126
(202) 675-6992 - fax
Weve moved! Please note our new info!
****ATTENTION****

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: Transit
Tom: I will work on this. As I said yesterday on the phone, I am in the office
today without any appointments scheduled so if you have a block of time this
afternoon to talk that would be good. Thanks. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Subject: RE: Transit
Mark
I think George could be difficult at this hearing, but he may leave that for the
Committee work session or the full Council work session. Having said that, I think
you need your remarks ( or someones) should address the vision for what we are
trying to accomplish.
1.
This initiative creates the best value for significantly increasing
transportation capacity so that the County can move forward economically, and in an
environmentally sensitive manner;
2.
Without this investment, potentially 139,000 net new jobs may be lost over
the next 20 years;
3.
Without these new jobs which will make a significant contribution to an
expanding County economy, government will be faced with higher taxes on existing
residents, or reduced services to the public.
4.
Without this resource, Master Plans already approved by the Council (GSSC
and White Flint) will not be implemented because the needed transit capacity will
not be created;
5.
The proposed system allows us to significantly increase transportation
capacity without creating more traffic for existing neighborhoods;
6.
The Council should not be drawn into a false choice. Do not pit the
Purple Line against the RTV initiative or CCT. We need all transit projects for
an effective transit network that will create livable, walkable communities of the
future that rely less on single occupancy vehicles.
This request funds important planning studies (see below) that will complement a
CIP amendment that will provide the funding for conceptual design studies for some
of the corridors included in Phase I of the TTF envisioned system. Planning and
design funding for the other Phase 1 corridors is (CCT, Ga. Av. North, and Viers
Mill Rd.) either being funded by MDOT, or by the County in other PDFs included in
the CIP.
Others might discuss the specifics of the request:
1.
how these funds will be spent ?
Answer:
The following studies will be initiated with the requested funds:
a.
Service planning and integration study for Ride-On and Metrobus;
b.
c.
d.
Pedestrian/bicyclist access to stations;

Transit signal priority on selected corridors;
Pre-concept analysis for other corridors;
e.
Park and ride study to serve corridor terminal stations; and
f.
Organizational study how RTV system will be built and operated
efficiently.
2.
how the expenditure of these funds will advance the short, mid, and long
term implementation of a countywide RTV network;
Answer: These studies are essential for early stage implementation of Phase 1 of
the TTF report. The service planning and integration study is vital to determining
how Ride-On and Metrobus service will be modified in order to complement the RTV
system. The study on pedestrian/bicyclist access study is self-explanatory. The
parking study is essential to determining where to site parking facilities needed
to serve the system and promote ridership. Perhaps the most important study is the
organizational study; a study that will address what organization is needed to best
develop, fund and finance, and operate the system.
3.
why now ?
and
Answer: The studies are fundamental to identification and development of system

elements that are essential for further conceptual planning activities.
4.
how these funds will leverage other federal, state, local, and private
funding for this RTV network ?
Answer: Most of the studies do not address leveraging federal, state, local and
private funds. However, this issue may be an important component of the
organizational study.

To: Street, Thomas
Subject: Transit
01-09-13
Tom: I have been placed on the list to testify on the 15th as have several
others from the Task Force. I am inclined to limit my testimony directly to the
issue at hand: the approval of the supplemental. Could you give me some thoughts
as to what you would like me to say? Also, to you have any more comprehensive
views as to what some of my colleagues might say and how we might coordinate our
statements? Thanks. mark

To:
'Jonathan Genn'
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE:
Good idea.
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Street, Thomas
Subject: Re:
Mark:
Looks very good. What about addin in your bullet point 1 the possibility to
eliminate potential duplicative Ride-On routes in deference to the rapid transit
corridors, an thereby make the whole of the multi-modal routes more cost-effective?
Jonathan

and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office:
301-622-0100
Mobile:
410-935-2599
Email:
Sent from my iPhone

Tom: Attached is a rough draft of proposed testimony for me to give to the
Council next week. Please give me your comments. It is brief and I dont think
it needs to be any more involved. I have 3 minutes. Thanks. Mark
Jonathan: The attached is what I propose to do for me. If it makes sense I

will circulate it to others so they may say what they would like. Thanks. MW
<image001.jpg>
<Testimony before Montgomery County Council, 01-10-13.doc>

To:
L. Mark Winston
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re:
Mark:
Looks very good. What about addin in your bullet point 1 the possibility to
eliminate potential duplicative Ride-On routes in deference to the rapid transit
corridors, an thereby make the whole of the multi-modal routes more cost-effective?
Jonathan
and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone
Tom: Attached is a rough draft of proposed testimony for me to give to the

Council next week. Please give me your comments. It is brief and I dont think
it needs to be any more involved. I have 3 minutes. Thanks. Mark
Jonathan: The attached is what I propose to do for me. If it makes sense I

will circulate it to others so they may say what they would like. Thanks. MW
<image001.jpg>
<Testimony before Montgomery County Council, 01-10-13.doc>

To:
Street, Thomas
Cc:
Jonathan Genn
Attachments:
Testimony before Montgomery County Council, 01-10-13.doc
Tom: Attached is a rough draft of proposed testimony for me to give to the Council
next week. Please give me your comments. It is brief and I dont think it needs
to be any more involved. I have 3 minutes. Thanks. Mark
Jonathan: The attached is what I propose to do for me. If it makes sense I will
circulate it to others so they may say what they would like. Thanks. MW

To:
'Jonathan Genn'
Cc:
Tina Slater; Francine Waters; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: CFT - Executive Committee meeting schedule
To: All: I apologize. I have been immersed in several client matters and have
simply not focused on the CFT work. I will get my head into that in the next day
or so and will get back to everyone. Thanks. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Tina Slater; Francine Waters; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; Street, Thomas
Subject: Re: CFT - Executive Committee meeting schedule
Did we pick a time? The first hold I have on my calendar is tonight after 7pm.
I'm still available tonight. But can be available any other time noted in my prior
email (below), except for Jan 14. I'm no longer available for that time.
Thanks.
Jonathan

and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office:
301-622-0100
Mobile:
410-935-2599
Email:
Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 2, 2013, at 8:08 PM, "Jonathan Genn" <Jonathan@Percontee.com> wrote:
My available blocks of time for up to 2 hrs:
Jan 9:
7pm to 10pm
Jan 10:
5pm to 9pm
Jan 11:
1pm to 4pm
Jan 14:
2pm to 8pm
Jan 16:
5pm to 9pm
Jan 17:
10am to 12 noon
I'm not available anytime on the 15th or 17th.
Jonathan

and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office:
301-622-0100
Mobile:
410-935-2599
Email:
Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 2, 2013, at 12:08 PM, "L. Mark Winston" <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>
wrote:
01-02-13
Happy New Year to all!
I would like to schedule our next two meetings. With everyones packed
schedule, perhaps it makes sense to do our next meeting by telephone conference.
Please let me know several times when you would be available for a call of 90 to
120 minutes duration during the period from Wednesday, January 9th through and
including Wednesday, January 16th. I would also like to schedule a meeting for the
period between Tuesday, January 29th and Friday, February 8th. The purpose of the
second meeting would be for us to conduct interviews with prospective candidates
for Executive Director. I have received a few resumes that I will forward to you
soon. Thanks. Mark
<image001.jpg>

To:
L. Mark Winston
Cc:
Subject:
Re: CFT - Executive Committee meeting schedule
Did we pick a time? The first hold I have on my calendar is tonight after 7pm.
I'm still available tonight. But can be available any other time noted in my prior
email (below), except for Jan 14. I'm no longer available for that time.
Thanks.
Jonathan
and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 2, 2013, at 8:08 PM, "Jonathan Genn" <Jonathan@Percontee.com> wrote:

Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
9:
10:
11:
14:
16:
17:
7pm to 10pm
5pm to 9pm
1pm to 4pm
2pm to 8pm
5pm to 9pm
10am to 12 noon

Jonathan
and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 2, 2013, at 12:08 PM, "L. Mark Winston" <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>

wrote:
01-02-13
I would like to schedule our next two meetings. With everyones packed
soon. Thanks. Mark
<image001.jpg>

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: 2035 Maryland Transportation Plan Roundtable Workshops - 2nd Notice
Perhaps we can discuss this as well.
________________________________
To: Street, Thomas; L. Mark Winston; alex@smartergrowth.net;
stewart@smartergrowth.net; djwilhelm@verizon.net; Tina Slater; Francine Waters
(fwaters@Lerner.com); dmcdonough@jhu.edu; Berliner, Roger; Leventhal, George;
Elrich, Marc; Floreen, Nancy; Riemer, Hans; Orlin, Glenn; Rice, Craig; Andrews,
Phil; Ervin, Valerie; Navarro, Nancy
Subject: RE: 2035 Maryland Transportation Plan Roundtable Workshops - 2nd Notice
Thanks, Tom.
FYI, as of this evening, registration for the Jan 29 event in Greenbelt is closed;
but registration for the Jan 22 event in Hanover is still open.
Take Care.
Jonathan

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Office Telephone:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Office Telecopier:
Mobile Telephone:
Email:
301-622-3507
410-935-2599

To: L. Mark Winston; alex@smartergrowth.net; stewart@smartergrowth.net; Jonathan
Genn; djwilhelm@verizon.net; Tina Slater; Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com);
dmcdonough@jhu.edu; Berliner, Roger; Leventhal, George; Elrich, Marc; Floreen,
Nancy; Riemer, Hans; Orlin, Glenn; Rice, Craig; Andrews, Phil; Ervin, Valerie;
Navarro, Nancy
Subject: FW: 2035 Maryland Transportation Plan Roundtable Workshops - 2nd Notice
FYI and use.

Greetings!
Under the leadership of the O'Malley-Brown Administration, the Maryland Department

of Transportation (MDOT) is holding a series of Roundtable Workshops in support of
the 2035 Maryland Transportation Plan (MTP), and we are seeking your participation.
MDOT is engaging Maryland's residents, businesses, governmental agencies, and other
interested organizations to ensure that the goals, objectives and strategies
developed through the MTP update process reflect and respond to the needs of all of
Maryland's transportation stakeholders. Your input into this 20-year vision for
transportation in Maryland will ultimately help guide statewide investment
decisions across all modes of transportation.
Information about the four MTP Roundtable Workshops is shown below. Please select
the date and location that works best for you, as all of the Workshops will have
the same content. Please note that capacity is limited so we encourage you to
reserve your place by January 2, 2013. Please click here
<http://mdot.createsend4.com/t/r-l-utndht-jrdtltydij-r/> to respond to this email
with the date and location of the Roundtable Workshop that you would like to
attend. You will receive a confirmation email within 1-2 business days.
Date
Time
Location
Thursday, January 10
9am-11:30am
(registration opens at 8:30)
Frederick, SHA District 7 Office
5111 Buckeystown Pike
Frederick, MD 21704
Tuesday, January 22
9am-11:30am
MDOT Headquarters
7201 Corporate Center Drive
Hanover, MD 21076
Friday, January 25
9am-11:30am
Chestertown, SHA District 2 Office
615 Morgnec Road
Chestertown, MD 21620
Tuesday, January 29
9am-11:30am
Greenbelt, SHA District 3 Office
9300 Kenilworth Avenue

Greenbelt, MD 20770
We hope you will be able to attend one of the Roundtables and share your ideas for
the future of Marylands transportation system. If you are unable to attend, you
will still have other opportunities to provide input through the MTP webpage and
our upcoming online survey.
If you have any questions or special needs, please contact Shelley Johnson at Sharp
& Company, which is helping MDOT organize the Workshops. She can be reached at 301424-6133 or shelley@sharpandco.com. <mailto:shelley@sharpandco.com>
We look forward to seeing you!
<http://i2.createsend4.com/ei/r/06/2A8/820/040926/csimport/halligansig_1.jpg>
Donald A. Halligan, Director
Office of Planning and Capital Programming
Maryland Department of Transportation
Click here to register <http://mdot.createsend4.com/t/r-l-utndht-jrdtltydij-y/>
This email was sent to ike.leggett@montgomerycountymd.gov. If you are no longer

interested you can unsubscribe instantly <http://mdot.createsend4.com/t/r-u-utndhtjrdtltydij-l/> .
<https://createsend4.com/t/r-o-utndht-jrdtltydij/o.gif>
To:
Street, Thomas; L. Mark Winston; alex@smartergrowth.net;
stewart@smartergrowth.net; djwilhelm@verizon.net; Tina Slater; Francine Waters
(fwaters@Lerner.com); dmcdonough@jhu.edu; Berliner, Roger; Leventhal, George;
Elrich, Marc; Floreen, Nancy; Riemer, Hans; Orlin, Glenn; Rice, Craig; Andrews,
Phil; Ervin, Valerie; Navarro, Nancy

Subject:
RE: 2035 Maryland Transportation Plan Roundtable Workshops - 2nd Notice
Thanks, Tom.
FYI, as of this evening, registration for the Jan 29 event in Greenbelt is closed;
but registration for the Jan 22 event in Hanover is still open.
Take Care.
Jonathan

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Office Telephone:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Office Telecopier:
Mobile Telephone:
Email:
301-622-3507
410-935-2599

To: L. Mark Winston; alex@smartergrowth.net; stewart@smartergrowth.net; Jonathan
Genn; djwilhelm@verizon.net; Tina Slater; Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com);
dmcdonough@jhu.edu; Berliner, Roger; Leventhal, George; Elrich, Marc; Floreen,
Nancy; Riemer, Hans; Orlin, Glenn; Rice, Craig; Andrews, Phil; Ervin, Valerie;
Navarro, Nancy
Subject: FW: 2035 Maryland Transportation Plan Roundtable Workshops - 2nd Notice
FYI and use.

Greetings!
Under the leadership of the O'Malley-Brown Administration, the Maryland Department

of Transportation (MDOT) is holding a series of Roundtable Workshops in support of
the 2035 Maryland Transportation Plan (MTP), and we are seeking your participation.
MDOT is engaging Maryland's residents, businesses, governmental agencies, and other
interested organizations to ensure that the goals, objectives and strategies
developed through the MTP update process reflect and respond to the needs of all of
Maryland's transportation stakeholders. Your input into this 20-year vision for
transportation in Maryland will ultimately help guide statewide investment
decisions across all modes of transportation.
Information about the four MTP Roundtable Workshops is shown below. Please select
the date and location that works best for you, as all of the Workshops will have
the same content. Please note that capacity is limited so we encourage you to
reserve your place by January 2, 2013. Please click here
<http://mdot.createsend4.com/t/r-l-utndht-jrdtltydij-r/> to respond to this email
with the date and location of the Roundtable Workshop that you would like to
attend. You will receive a confirmation email within 1-2 business days.
Date
Time
Location
Thursday, January 10
9am-11:30am
Frederick, SHA District 7 Office
5111 Buckeystown Pike
Frederick, MD 21704
Tuesday, January 22
9am-11:30am
MDOT Headquarters
7201 Corporate Center Drive
Hanover, MD 21076
Friday, January 25
9am-11:30am
Chestertown, SHA District 2 Office
615 Morgnec Road
Chestertown, MD 21620
Tuesday, January 29
9am-11:30am
Greenbelt, SHA District 3 Office
9300 Kenilworth Avenue
Greenbelt, MD 20770
We hope you will be able to attend one of the Roundtables and share your ideas for
the future of Marylands transportation system. If you are unable to attend, you
will still have other opportunities to provide input through the MTP webpage and
our upcoming online survey.
If you have any questions or special needs, please contact Shelley Johnson at Sharp
& Company, which is helping MDOT organize the Workshops. She can be reached at 301424-6133 or shelley@sharpandco.com. <mailto:shelley@sharpandco.com>
We look forward to seeing you!
<http://i2.createsend4.com/ei/r/06/2A8/820/040926/csimport/halligansig_1.jpg>
Donald A. Halligan, Director
Office of Planning and Capital Programming
Maryland Department of Transportation
Click here to register <http://mdot.createsend4.com/t/r-l-utndht-jrdtltydij-y/>
This email was sent to ike.leggett@montgomerycountymd.gov. If you are no longer

interested you can unsubscribe instantly <http://mdot.createsend4.com/t/r-u-utndhtjrdtltydij-l/> .
<https://createsend4.com/t/r-o-utndht-jrdtltydij/o.gif>
To:
'Francine Waters'; 'L. Mark Winston'; 'Tina Slater'; 'Wilhelm, Dan';
'Jonathan Genn'
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Mark
I had a family event added to my schedule for Thursday, Jan 10
Dan

To: L. Mark Winston; 'Tina Slater'; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; 'Jonathan Genn'
Subject: RE: CFT - Executive Committee meeting schedule
Wednesday, January 9th through and including Wednesday, January 16th
AVAILABLE:
Monday, January 14th
- anytime
Tuesday, January 15th anytime

Wednesday, January 16th 9 1
Tuesday, January 29th and Friday, February 8th
NOT AVAILABLE:
Wednesday, January 30th

Thursday, February 7th
Thanks
Francine
FRANCINE E. WATERS

Eighth Floor
301.692.2563 direct tel
301.692.2631 direct fax
Fwaters@Lerner.com
To: 'Tina Slater'; Francine Waters; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; 'Jonathan Genn'
Subject: CFT - Executive Committee meeting schedule
01-02-13
I would like to schedule our next two meetings. With everyones packed schedule,
perhaps it makes sense to do our next meeting by telephone conference. Please let
me know several times when you would be available for a call of 90 to 120 minutes
duration during the period from Wednesday, January 9th through and including
Wednesday, January 16th. I would also like to schedule a meeting for the period
between Tuesday, January 29th and Friday, February 8th. The purpose of the second
meeting would be for us to conduct interviews with prospective candidates for
Executive Director. I have received a few resumes that I will forward to you soon.
Thanks. Mark
****ATTENTION****
To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Communities for Transit, Inc.
Tom: I sent this to you previously; however I didnt mention that apparently what
he is saying is that the Revenue Authority can spend these funds either for CFT
activities or for Task Force activities. Do you have any thoughts about what we
should say is the ground for extension and for what we will use the funds? Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Subject: RE: Communities for Transit, Inc.
Hi Mark,
Happy New Year.
Yes, we can extend the grant. It will require a formal request (email will do) from
the PI (thats you) to me. Youll have to justify the extension.
No, we cant have MCRA transfer those resources to CFT. They can spend those
resources for CFT activities, but they cant transfer it. (esp since CFT is not yet
a 501c3.) Along with the request for extension, youll also need to submit a
request for amending the budget with a spreadsheet comparing the last approved
budget with the proposed new budget. Of course, youll also need to provide
justification for the budget amendment.
Regards,
Benjamin de la Pea

Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 1:36 PM
Subject: Communities for Transit, Inc.
12-28-12
Benjie: Good afternoon. I have learned that The Montgomery County Revenue
Authority, the formal recipient of the grant from The Rockefeller Foundation for
the benefit of the County Executives Transit Task Force, has a balance in their
account for that grant of $5,131.95. I propose, first, that the Foundation
authorize an extension; second, that the Foundation authorize a transfer of that
balance to Communities for Transit, Inc. Thanks for your consideration.
Year.
If I do not speak with you before the 1st, have a happy and healthy New
Mark

To:
'Peter.consult@verizon.net'
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Montgomery Transit
01-07-13
Peter: Good afternoon. Thanks very much for taking the time to meet with Tom
Street and me in my office this morning. We are interested in continuing that
discussion and I will be in touch in the near future to do so. Mark

To:
L. Mark Winston; 'Tina Slater'; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; 'Jonathan Genn'
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Attachments:
Wednesday, January 9th through and including Wednesday, January 16th
AVAILABLE:
Monday, January 14th
- anytime
Tuesday, January 15th anytime

Wednesday, January 16th 9 1
Tuesday, January 29th and Friday, February 8th
NOT AVAILABLE:
Wednesday, January 30th

Thursday, February 7th
Thanks
Francine
FRANCINE E. WATERS

Eighth Floor
301.692.2563 direct tel
301.692.2631 direct fax
Fwaters@Lerner.com
01-02-13
Thanks. Mark
****ATTENTION****

To:
'Tina Slater'; Francine Waters; 'Wilhelm, Dan'; Dan Wilhelm;
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Communities for Transit, Inc. - Executive Director Search
Attachments:
CScott - CFT cover letter.docx; Charlie Scott Resume.doc
01-07-13
Ladies and Gentlemen: Please see the email below and attachments from Mr. Charlie
Scott, an applicant for the position of Executive Director of CFT. Thanks. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Mark,
I heard from colleagues at Montgomery DOT about Communities for Transit, Inc. and
your Executive Director search.
I am interested in meeting with you and the search committee and have attached my
resume and cover letter for your consideration.
My home and cell numbers are included on my resume, and you are also welcome to
call me at work at 202.962.1006.
Regards,
Charlie
To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Communities for Transit, Inc.
Tom: See my exchange below. We should discuss how we want to use the money and
the justification(s) Benjie requests. Thanks. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Hi Mark,
Happy New Year.
Yes, we can extend the grant. It will require a formal request (email will do) from
the PI (thats you) to me. Youll have to justify the extension.
No, we cant have MCRA transfer those resources to CFT. They can spend those
resources for CFT activities, but they cant transfer it. (esp since CFT is not yet
a 501c3.) Along with the request for extension, youll also need to submit a
request for amending the budget with a spreadsheet comparing the last approved
budget with the proposed new budget. Of course, youll also need to provide
justification for the budget amendment.
Regards,
Benjamin de la Pea

12-28-12
Benjie: Good afternoon. I have learned that The Montgomery County Revenue
Authority, the formal recipient of the grant from The Rockefeller Foundation for
the benefit of the County Executives Transit Task Force, has a balance in their
account for that grant of $5,131.95. I propose, first, that the Foundation
authorize an extension; second, that the Foundation authorize a transfer of that
balance to Communities for Transit, Inc. Thanks for your consideration.
Year.
Mark

To:
Scott Trommer
Cc:
L. Mark Winston; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: Transit Finance
Mark:
I we could meet in Rockville, Monday Jan 7 from 1pm on would be best.
I could also meet:
Jan 8 between 4pm and 6pm or
Jan 10 between 2:00pm and 3:30pm
Thanks.
Jonathan
and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 2, 2013, at 3:58 PM, "Scott Trommer" <TROMMERS@pfm.com> wrote:
Mark,
Good to hear from you. Likewise hope all is well you and that you enjoyed the
holidays. I could be available for a call the afternoon of either Monday the 7th,
Tuesday the 8th or anytime on Thursday the 10th. Let me know if any of those or
another date/time works for you and Jonathan. In the meanwhile I will follow-up
with Tom.
Regards,
Scott

To: Scott Trommer
Cc: 'Street, Thomas'; 'Jonathan Genn'
Subject: Transit Finance
01-02-13
Scott: Happy New Year. I hope you are doing well. Jonathan Genn and I
would like to discuss a new idea relating to the financing of the transit system
proposed by the Task Force. Please let me know when you might be available for a
conversation sometime in the next couple of weeks. Thanks very much. Mark
P.S. Feel free to confirm with Tom Street that you are authorized to take
the time to discuss this with us. MW
<image001.jpg>
Electronic mail sent through the Internet is not secure. Therefore, we cannot
represent that the information in this e-mail, and any attachments, is complete,
accurate, uncorrupted, timely or free of viruses or that such information will not
be intercepted by third parties. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains
information that is, or may be, covered by electronic communications privacy laws,
and is also confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the intended
recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining, using,
copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this information in any manner.
Instead, please reply to the sender that you have received this communication in
error, and then immediately delete it. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
To:
L. Mark Winston
Cc:
Subject:
Re: CFT - Executive Committee meeting schedule
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
9:
10:
11:
14:
16:
17:
7pm to 10pm
5pm to 9pm
1pm to 4pm
2pm to 8pm
5pm to 9pm
10am to 12 noon

Jonathan
and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone
01-02-13
I would like to schedule our next two meetings.
With everyones packed

soon. Thanks. Mark
<image001.jpg>

To:
'L. Mark Winston'; 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; 'Wilhelm, Dan';
'Jonathan Genn'
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
I am available
Evening: Jan 9, 10, 16

Day: Prefer 11 or 14.
Evening: Jan 29, 30, 31, 4, 5, 6, 7

Day: Jan 4 after 11:00AM and Jan 8

01-02-13
Thanks. Mark

To:
L. Mark Winston
Cc:
Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Fwd: Business Case for More Public Transportation
Mark --- Thought this was a very interesting piece that could be part of CFT's
public education campaign. Maybe there are more studies out there like this (I
will look). --- Tina (in UK)
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Cindy Snow
Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Subject: Fwd: Business Case for More Public Transportation
To: tjvanhouten@gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'tjvanhouten@gmail.com');> ,
slater.tina@gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'slater.tina@gmail.com');> ,
mwschoenbaum@yahoo.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'mwschoenbaum@yahoo.com');> ,
ronitadancis@yahoo.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'ronitadancis@yahoo.com');> ,
jhfay@verizon.net <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'jhfay@verizon.net');> ,
malcomjohnstone@hotmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'malcomjohnstone@hotmail.com');> , exist@cheerful.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'exist@cheerful.com');> , JWarrenClarke@aol.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'JWarrenClarke@aol.com');> , ben@disposalsafety.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'ben@disposalsafety.com');> , qykwan@gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'qykwan@gmail.com');>
FYI.
Cindy
From: Gail Becker

To: Montgomery County Council <county.council@montgomerycountymd.gov>,
"ike.leggett@montgomerycountymd.gov"
<ike.leggett@montgomerycountymd.gov>
CC: Action Committee for Transit <admin@actfortransit.org>
Subject: Business Case for More Public Transportation
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 21:09:22 -0500
The article below can be used in the business case for spending more money on
public transportation. The article refers to European car users and is also
applicable to American car users.
EUROPEAN CAR USERS POLLUTE BUT DO NOT FOOT THE BILL
-> According to a Dec. 17th ECF Newsletter article, "Every car in Europe
produces external costs of an equivalent of 1,600 Euro [$2,120] (on average)
annually in noise, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and accidents, not
covered by liability insurance. This is the key figure of a new study called 'The
True Costs of Automobility: External Costs of Cars' ( http://bit.ly/ZhOQJg
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001BxQJb5rgD7qwslaYhSsxILL7WaQLpiR5JOYeJWeDCbTRWSBSLIE4pCBWtpjD6_Qc43xaJdyEftG26krj4LpzFeEkIc
XyC2mk28hqI3_wBA=> ) that was put together and presented in the European Parliament
by Prof Becker, Chair of Transport Ecology from University of Dresden. Becker
deplores that the basic principle of a market economy - the polluter pays the full
costs him -- or herself -- is not applied: 'These costs are charged to the whole
society, to other regions and to future generations,' he says."
"Becker's other main findings include: For the EU-27, the overall sum of
uncovered costs related to car use amounts to 373 billion euro [$495 billion] per
year, the equivalent of roughly 3.0 % of the EU's GDP or the GDP of Belgium. The
report also gives detailed national figures for each of the EU-27 Member States. On
average, every EU citizen pays 750 euro [$994] of subsidies per year. Per vehicle
km (vkm), external costs equal 13 Euro-cents on EU-average. 41 % of these external
costs are due to accidents and 37 % to climate change. The remaining 22 % divide up
on air pollution, noise and other effects..."
Source: http://bit.ly/WmrUTT <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001BxQJb5r-gD5Ty3wIj5dniSj4Zu5V5TmRCDXfFz9xqwQaeNRCmRfgisFbHjtcEnLnR8UJ8NzM0ts3H7ywRBiNIE66Z701d3FTnJ
x-WxGcRg=>
Title: "Car users pollute but do not foot the bill"
Author: Staff

To:
'Scott Trommer'
Cc:
Street, Thomas; 'Jonathan Genn'
Subject:
Transit Finance
01-02-13
Scott: Happy New Year. I hope you are doing well. Jonathan Genn and I would like
to discuss a new idea relating to the financing of the transit system proposed by
the Task Force. Please let me know when you might be available for a conversation
sometime in the next couple of weeks. Thanks very much. Mark
P.S. Feel free to confirm with Tom Street that you are authorized to take the time
to discuss this with us. MW

To:
'Tina Slater'; Francine Waters; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; 'Jonathan Genn'
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
CFT - Executive Director candidates
Attachments:
Curtis Johnson resume - Aug 2012.doc; Evan Glass resume.docx;
Gross-Glazer resume.doc
01-02-13
Ladies and gentlemen: Attached please find three (3) resumes received thus far. I
will forward others as received. Your comments are welcome and, obviously, all
will be treated confidentially. Thanks. Mark

To:
'Tina Slater'; Francine Waters; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; 'Jonathan Genn'
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
CFT - Executive Committee meeting schedule
01-02-13
Thanks. Mark

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Appearance before East County Citizans Advisory Committee this evening
01-02-13
Tom: I thought we should consider who is going to do what tonight. There are a
couple of ways in which to approach this. First, you could run through the power
point and both of us could be available for any questions that might follow.
Second, we could split up the presentation, with me handling slides 1 through 20
quickly and you handling 21 to the end, focusing on what the County Executive is
proposing for the immediate and long range future.
Whether we go for the first or second option, I suggest that treatment

of the first 20 slides be quick. In fact, it should take no more than 8 to 10
minutes (max). We can gloss over the dual dedicated guide way portions of the
presentation making the point, instead, that the goal needs to be avoiding mixed
traffic and the fact that there are several options for how to produce that.
Regarding a description of the corridor network, we can focus on the

fact that the CE is recommending implementation of Phase One. I printed out the
Eastern Montgomery Region Transportation map from the ECCAB website. Perhaps we
should identify the RTV corridors that relate to that region. I also think we need
to emphasize the implications of doing nothing in our presentation.
Thoughts?
Mark

To:
Street, Thomas; 'Jonathan Genn'; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm
Subject:
FW: Worsening Congestion Expected to Reduce Access to Jobs For Some,
Not Others
Gentlemen: Please see article from Haller below.
this effectively. Mark
________________________________
From: Keith Haller [mailto:khaller@potomacinc.com]
We need to figure out how to use
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 1:56 PM

To: L. Mark Winston
Subject: FW: Worsening Congestion Expected to Reduce Access to Jobs For Some, Not
Others
Mark
Dont know if you saw this alarming report from the TPB and their own analysis of
potential job loss without demonstrative transit investments.
This is another highly credible corroborating source about the need to control our
own destiny (Montgomery County).
Onward and upward, Keith!
From: TPB Weekly Report [mailto:bhampton@mwcog.org]

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:36 AM
To: Bronrott, Bill (FMCSA)
Subject: Worsening Congestion Expected to Reduce Access to Jobs For Some, Not
Others
To view this message in a browser, please click here

<http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/message.aspx?
d=348&m=1159&e=bill.bronrott@dot.gov&r=67695&f=HTML> .
TPB Weekly Report - An online publication of the National Capital Region
Transportation Planning Board <http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?
l=1&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159>
December 18, 2012
Worsening Congestion Expected to Reduce Access to Jobs For Some, Not Others
________________________________
Related Links
Summary of 2012 CLRP Performance Analysis
<http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?l=2&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159>
________________________________
Recent Weekly Reports

December 11, 2012
"'Without Major Changes, Current Planning and Funding Trajectories Portend
Worsening Congestion, Analysis Finds" <http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?
l=3&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159>
December 4, 2012
"Citizen Leaders Gather to Learn About Regional Transportation Decision-Making"
November 27, 2012
"New Tools Would Help Visitors Find Alternative Ways to Access Region's National
Park Sites" <http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?l=5&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159>
November 20, 2012
Holiday - No Report
Archived Reports <http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?
l=6&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159>
________________________________
More From TPB

TPB Facebook <http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?
l=8&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159>
TPB Twitter <http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?l=9&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159>
Periodical Publications
TPB News <http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?l=11&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159>
The Region <http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?l=12&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159>

________________________________
"TPB Weekly Report" is an online publication designed to provide brief, timely

summaries of recent TPB research, analysis, outreach, and planning in the
metropolitan Washington region.
Questions and comments about "TPB Weekly Report" should be directed to Ben Hampton
<mailto:bhampton@mwcog.org?subject=TPB%20Weekly%20Report%20Feedback> .
A recent Transportation Planning Board analysis

<http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?l=14&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159> that
shows worsening congestion on the region's roadways and transit systems through
2040 also predicts an overall decline in the average number of jobs that will be
reasonably accessible by car, even as more than 1.1 million new jobs are forecast
to be added in the region during the period. At the same time, the average number
of jobs accessible within a 45-minute trip by transit is expected to grow.
The analysis, which is based on the latest update to the region's Constrained LongRange Transportation Plan <http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?
l=15&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159> , or CLRP, found that the number of jobs accessible by
car within a 45-minute drive for the average resident of the Washington region will
decline by 72,000 between now and 2040. Currently, the average resident can reach
about 1.3 million jobs by car in that amount of time.
For people who take transit, the number of jobs accessible within 45 minutes is
expected to increase by about 80,000, from 419,000 to nearly 500,000, although the
average resident will still be able to access almost two and a half times as many
jobs by car.
The changes in accessibility by car are expected to differ greatly in different

parts of the region.
Significant losses are anticipated on the eastern side of the region. In Prince
George's County, close to 450,000 people -- or about 52% of the county's population
-- live in areas where at least 300,000 fewer jobs are expected to be reasonably
accessible by car compared to today. In Montgomery and Fairfax Counties, about 15%
of the population lives in such areas.
In the west, many areas are forecast to see increases in the number of jobs
accessible by car. In much of Fairfax County, residents are expected be able to
access at least 100,000 more jobs by car in 2040 than they are today, with some
areas seeing accessibility gains of more than 300,000 jobs. Large swaths of both
the District of Columbia and Arlington County are expected to see significant gains
in accessibility through 2040.
While the declines in accessibility by car in some parts of the region are due
mainly to congestion -- as highways become more crowded, it simply takes longer to
get places -- the stark differences between these areas result mostly from
imbalanced job growth. In the westernmost counties -- Loudoun, Fairfax, and Prince
William -- job growth is expected to outpace growth in the easternmost counties -Prince George's and Charles -- by more than 300,000 jobs over the next three
decades.
When it comes to transit, the analysis shows much less regional variation in the
changes in accessibility.
Gains of up to 100,000 jobs are expected throughout much of the region, since
transit does not suffer nearly as much from delays as a result of overcrowding as
roadways do. But some areas are forecast to see declines in accessibility by
transit, much of it resulting from roadway congestion making it harder to access
transit stations by car or bus.
This picture of the region's transportation future is not necessarily an inevitable

one. The TPB's analysis is based on current planning and funding trajectories
outlined in the CLRP, which reflects current forecasts of population and job growth
and the major transportation improvements that the state and local jurisdictions in
the region currently expect to build or implement over the next three decades.
Several of the TPB's existing planning activities -- including the Transportation/

Land-Use Connections program, or TLC, and a planned study
<http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?l=17&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159> under the
federal Transportation, Community, and System Preservation program, or TCSP -- aim
to shift the current trajectories somewhat by encouraging development patterns that
bring jobs and housing closer together and shift future development into areas near
current or planned transit stations, and by improving multimodal transportation
options.
The TPB's analysis of future job accessibility in the region is an important one
because it shows what current forecasts and planning imply for future economic
opportunity for the region's residents. As the region adds 1.1 million jobs by
2040, a drop in the average number of jobs that are reasonably accessible by car -with significant losses on the eastern side of the region -- is a call to action
for planners and decision-makers.
________________________________
The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB) is the metropolitan
planning organization (MPO) for the Washington region. The TPB is responsible for
directing the continuing transportation planning process carried out cooperatively
by the states and the local communities in the region. The TPB is staffed by the
Department of Transportation Planning of the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments.
________________________________
777 North Capitol St NE, Ste 300
www.mwcog.org/transportation
Washington DC 20002
202-962-3200
<http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/img.aspx?d=348&mid=1270&m=1159&r=67695>
To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Testimony on January 15th
Tom:
Please see exchange with David Hauck.
Mark
________________________________
To: 'David Hauck'
Subject: RE: Testimony on January 15th
David: Thanks. I was hoping to be able to engage The Traffic Group to do the
traffic volume study to which you are referring and also to focus on what happens
if we use BAT lanes for the repurposing (during rush hour). We didnt have enough
money but I am looking for a way to do that.
I also agree that some of the modeling needs to be more critically

evaluated. However, my fundamental problem is that using modeling to decide what
to do and where and when to locate transit corridors dooms us to never making any
qualitative change in how people move around. We need to make a policy judgment
about the result we want to achieve and then implement policies which achieve that
result.
I will talk to you soon.
Thanks again.
Mark
________________________________
From: David Hauck [mailto:hauck_d@msn.com]
To: L. Mark Winston
Hi Mark,
Tom Street's reply to David McDonough's email answered most of my questions about
why the specific studies were selected to be funded by the $1 million
appropriation.
At some point though, there will need to be a study of the impact on car traffic if
lanes are repurposed and dedicated to XRT. I know the Planning staff did some of
this for their Nov. 2012 study, but I wonder if more work needs to be done on this
issue since it is counter intuitive that one can take away a lane from cars,
dedicate it to transit and traffic speeds will not be negatively affected. I
believe it's true, but many residents (voters) and several council members will be
extremely skeptical.
A second study would look at projected ridership on Montgomery County XRT routes
using data from the experience of recent BRT systems in the U.S.
I have a hunch
that the model being used to project ridership is underestimating the number of
passengers. I don't know enough about the model inputs to point to specific
assumptions that I think are flawed, but the fact that projections for other BRT
systems in the U.S. have often turned out to be too low once the actual system
starts operations makes me think that the model needs to be adjusted using data
from that new BRT systems that are operating.
David
________________________________
From: mwinston@glazerwinston.com
To: hauck_d@msn.com
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 09:30:06 -0500
David: Good morning. Thanks for your comments. I would appreciate it if you
would elaborate on why you do not believe the studies mentioned in the CEs
proposal are the right ones and which studies you think should be undertaken at
this time. As you know, the TTF has three representatives on the Steering
Committee set up by the CE and CAO (Genn, Wilhelm, Winston). We have some issues
with how the Steering Committee is proceeding and our in discussions with MCDOT on
that. We may also want to focus on the issue of which studies are the right ones.
Your thoughts on that will be helpful.
With regard to the testimony on the 15th, I see no reason why you
should not continue to testify on behalf of the Sierra Club (you should probably
also indicate tat you served on the TTF). To the extent that all participants are
able to coordinate their remarks, you might also participate from that stand point.
We can discuss that in the next few days. Mostly, however, I would like to
understand your views about the substance of what is being proposed for studies.
Thanks. If I do not speak with you before the 1st, have a happy and healthy New
Year.
Mark
________________________________
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 3:41 PM
To: L. Mark Winston; 'dmcdonough@jhu.edu'; 'djwilhelm@verizon.net'
Cc: 'Jonathan@Percontee.com'; 'dwilhelm@mitre.org'; Tina Slater;
'fwaters@Lerner.com'; 'jsachs@mcccmd.com'; 'mbalcombe@ggchamber.org'; Tom Street
Transit Task Force members,
I have signed up to testify at the Jan. 15th public hearing (which begins at 1:30
pm) wearing my Sierra Club hat (but I can easily change that hat to a Task Force
hat if that makes more sense). I haven't decided yet which points to make in my
testimony so this discussion is very helpful.
I've attached a pdf of the county executive's request for the $1 million
supplemental appropriation which describes the six (6) studies the money is to
fund. This will help answer the first question David McDonough raises.
I agree
that David's other questions should be addressed at some point--perhaps at the Jan.
15th public hearing, perhaps in another setting--especially since I don't clearly
see how the six studies to be funded by the $1 million are really the most critical
ones at this time.
David Hauck
________________________________
To: dmcdonough@jhu.edu; djwilhelm@verizon.net
CC: Jonathan@Percontee.com; dwilhelm@mitre.org; slater.tina@gmail.com;
fwaters@Lerner.com; hauck_d@msn.com; jsachs@mcccmd.com; mbalcombe@ggchamber.org;
Tom.Street@montgomerycountymd.gov
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 12:04:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Testimony on January 15th
I will get you the CE's message requesting the appropriation. This isn't our
request it is his. Happy new year.
________________________________
From: David McDonough
To: Dan Wilhelm ; L. Mark Winston
Cc: L. Mark Winston; Jonathan Genn ; Wilhelm, Dan ; Tina Slater ; Francine Waters ;
hauck_d@msn.com ; Jonathan Sachs ; mbalcombe@ggchamber.org ; Street, Thomas
Sent: Sat Dec 29 11:52:27 2012
Mark,
I would be pleased to help in any way that would be supportive of moving RTV
forward.
However, from a public policy perspective, I think that it would be helpful to

answer the Catch 22 questions. That is, we are looking to advocate for an
additional $1 million in funding to advance County wide RTV forward, but, unless I
am mistaken, it does not appear that we have a clearly articulated plan for how
these funds are to be used. More specifically, it would be easier to lay out an
advocacy argument if we know the answers to the following questions:
1. how these funds will be spent ?
2. how the expenditure of these funds will advance the short, mid, and long term
implementation of a countywide RTV network;
3. why now ?
and
4. how these funds will leverage other federal, state, local, and private funding
for this RTV network ?
I would encourage you/us to come up with the answers to these questions, and then
figure out who you want to speak in support of your/our advocacy for these funds,
based upon the answers to these questions.
GO REDSKINS !
David
(from an undisclosed, but warmer, location out of town)
David McDonough
Johns
Hopkins Real Estate
Cell: (410) 491-3746

dmcdonough@jhu.edu
Sent from my iPad

On Dec 29, 2012, at 11:34 AM, "Dan Wilhelm" <djwilhelm@verizon.net> wrote:
My thinking is the same as Marks I needs to largely say we support and is
needed to help answer a number of questions everyone has including Executive
Branch, Council and the public.
________________________________
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 10:44 AM
To: 'Jonathan Genn'
Cc: Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; Tina Slater; Francine Waters; David McDonough;
hauck_d@msn.com; Jonathan Sachs; mbalcombe@ggchamber.org; Street, Thomas
Jonathan: My thought was that testimony would be relatively limited to

advocating adoption of the proposed supplemental appropriation. I dont think we
need to testify in any detail about the merits of the TTF proposal unless others
wish to do so. The argument would be that adoption of the $1 mm supplemental will
keep the planning moving ahead and preserve the Countys options concerning a
build-out of Phase I as proposed by the Task Force and so that we do not lose
time as to those portions of the proposal which are eventually adopted by the
Executive and Council based on the planning. However, those wishing to testify are
obviously free to say what they want and those participating can coordinate what
we say. We may also want to prepare to rebut testimony that may be given in
opposition. Perhaps a telephone conference will be in order once we know who is
interested in speaking. Thanks. Mark
<image001.jpg>
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
I would not be able to get there until 11:15-11:30am.

to be there before then, I am willing and able to testify.
I would also suggest that if we

that the TTF members there to testify
the Council will not think we are all
time. We should thus coordinate what
cover.
Presuming I don't need
all testify, Mark should lead off and say

will be speaking about separate topics, so
going to say the same thing and waste their
discrete topics/points we want to make and
Some suggestions:
Overall need to create greater people-moving capacity --- Mark Winston
Need to study/design multi-modal interconnections --- Dan Wilhelm
Need to tell prospective employers that Mont Co has a grand plan for mobility
well into the future --- Jonathan Sachs
How the comprehensive RTV network (even at just phase 1) will make all modes
of non-SOV (including Metro, Purple Line, MetroBus, Ride-on) more effective and
efficient --- Tina Slater
How the CCT will be more effective and efficient (and generate greater
ridership) with a comprehensive RTV network (I.e., not all CCT users will be living
and working along the CCT line, but from elsewhere around the county) --- Marilyn
Balcombe
How the job creation ambition of the Great Seneca Science Corridor cannot be
fully realized without a comprehensive RTV network (not only does the greater
economy of scale make the CCT more affordable, but it would make the Pro formas for
the CCT stronger and more competitive for federal and state funding) --- David
McDonough.
The White Flint master plan I faced with the Catch 22 of needed a very high
non-driver mode share; but without a comprehensive RTV network, achieving that nondriver mode share is unattainable and thus the County cannot achieve its goal of
increasing the tax base and job growth desired by the plan --- Francine Waters
We don't have any better, more cost-effective way to move people with
creating lots more impervious surfaces, nor is there any better way to cut down on
green house gas emissions and simultaneously move the maximum number of people for
mobility around the County than the proposed RTV network --- David Hauck.
The East County area borders Howard County, Prince George's County and DC, so
it is especially important to move forward the vision of a rapid transit network to
be integrated with surrounding jurisdictions (including 495 to and from No VA and
Frederick County) --- Jonathan Genn
Without the benefit of giving this a great deal of thought, These are some
suggestions for everyone's consideration.
Happy New Year's y'all!
Jonathan

and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office:
301-622-0100
Mobile:
410-935-2599
Email:
<mailto:jonathan@percontee.com> jonathan@percontee.com
Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 29, 2012, at 9:26 AM, "L. Mark Winston" <
<mailto:mwinston@glazerwinston.com> mwinston@glazerwinston.com> wrote:
12-29-12
Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing to enlist your thoughts about

giving testimony at the January 15th public hearing for the County Executives
proposed supplemental budgetary request of $1 million to keep planning moving ahead
on Phase I of the rapid transit system proposed by the Task Force. I hope that
each of you will have the time and willingness to testify offering your support
for the proposed supplemental. While the precise scope of the project to be
developed remains to be worked out, appropriation of these funds is critical to
keep the project moving along so as to not fall behind when a decision is
(hopefully) made to proceed. Please let me know if you are able and willing to
testify. If so, and you have not already done so, please call either Glenn Orlin
at 240-777-7936 or Linda Lauer at 240-777-7979. Again, please let me know of your
plans in this regard. Thanks very much.
Year.
Mark
<image001.jpg>

To:
Orlin, Glenn; Farber, Steve; Holmes, Arthur; Jones, Diane; Gonzalez, Edgar;
Kassiri, Fariba; Ike Leggett; Hughes, Jennifer; Citizen, Mid-County; Nurmi, Joy;
Alperson, Phil; Silverman, Steve; Street, Thomas; Citizen, Upcounty; Ann Marimow;
Lynn and Bernie Kapolott ; Hyslop, Margie; Spivack, Miranda (Washington Post
Reporter); Parcher, Amber; Amy Presley; Casey Anderson; Francoise Carrier ; Leslie
Saville; Bill Barron ; Callum Murray; Glenn Kreger ; John Carter ; Khalid Afzal;
Kristin O'Connor; Mary Bradford ; Nancy Sturgeon; Rob Gibbs
Subject:
MCCF Newsletter
Attachments:
Jan 13 Newsletter all.pdf
All
Happy New Year!
Newsletter is attached. We caught a tiny (one digit error).

should read Bill 35-12, not 25-12.
Dan
The first Tree Bill

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Worsening Congestion Expected to Reduce Access to Jobs For Some,
Not Others
Fyi from haller.
________________________________
From: Keith Haller [mailto:khaller@potomacinc.com]
To: L. Mark Winston
Subject: FW: Worsening Congestion Expected to Reduce Access to Jobs For Some, Not
Others
Mark
Dont know if you saw this alarming report from the TPB and their own analysis of
potential job loss without demonstrative transit investments.
This is another highly credible corroborating source about the need to control our
own destiny (Montgomery County).
Onward and upward, Keith!
From: TPB Weekly Report [mailto:bhampton@mwcog.org]

To: Bronrott, Bill (FMCSA)
Subject: Worsening Congestion Expected to Reduce Access to Jobs For Some, Not
Others
To view this message in a browser, please click here

<http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/message.aspx?
d=348&m=1159&e=bill.bronrott@dot.gov&r=67695&f=HTML> .
TPB Weekly Report - An online publication of the National Capital Region
Transportation Planning Board <http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?
l=1&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159>
December 18, 2012
Worsening Congestion Expected to Reduce Access to Jobs For Some, Not Others
________________________________
Related Links
Summary of 2012 CLRP Performance Analysis
________________________________
Recent Weekly Reports

December 11, 2012
"'Without Major Changes, Current Planning and Funding Trajectories Portend
Worsening Congestion, Analysis Finds" <http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?
l=3&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159>
December 4, 2012
"Citizen Leaders Gather to Learn About Regional Transportation Decision-Making"
November 27, 2012
"New Tools Would Help Visitors Find Alternative Ways to Access Region's National
Park Sites" <http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?l=5&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159>
November 20, 2012
Holiday - No Report
Archived Reports <http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?
l=6&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159>
________________________________
More From TPB

TPB Facebook <http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?
l=8&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159>
TPB Twitter <http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?l=9&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159>
Periodical Publications
TPB News <http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?l=11&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159>

________________________________
"TPB Weekly Report" is an online publication designed to provide brief, timely

summaries of recent TPB research, analysis, outreach, and planning in the
metropolitan Washington region.
Questions and comments about "TPB Weekly Report" should be directed to Ben Hampton
<mailto:bhampton@mwcog.org?subject=TPB%20Weekly%20Report%20Feedback> .
A recent Transportation Planning Board analysis

<http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?l=14&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159> that
shows worsening congestion on the region's roadways and transit systems through
2040 also predicts an overall decline in the average number of jobs that will be
reasonably accessible by car, even as more than 1.1 million new jobs are forecast
to be added in the region during the period. At the same time, the average number
of jobs accessible within a 45-minute trip by transit is expected to grow.
The analysis, which is based on the latest update to the region's Constrained LongRange Transportation Plan <http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?
l=15&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159> , or CLRP, found that the number of jobs accessible by
car within a 45-minute drive for the average resident of the Washington region will
decline by 72,000 between now and 2040. Currently, the average resident can reach
about 1.3 million jobs by car in that amount of time.
For people who take transit, the number of jobs accessible within 45 minutes is
expected to increase by about 80,000, from 419,000 to nearly 500,000, although the
average resident will still be able to access almost two and a half times as many
jobs by car.
The changes in accessibility by car are expected to differ greatly in different

parts of the region.
Significant losses are anticipated on the eastern side of the region. In Prince
George's County, close to 450,000 people -- or about 52% of the county's population
-- live in areas where at least 300,000 fewer jobs are expected to be reasonably
accessible by car compared to today. In Montgomery and Fairfax Counties, about 15%
of the population lives in such areas.
In the west, many areas are forecast to see increases in the number of jobs
accessible by car. In much of Fairfax County, residents are expected be able to
access at least 100,000 more jobs by car in 2040 than they are today, with some
areas seeing accessibility gains of more than 300,000 jobs. Large swaths of both
the District of Columbia and Arlington County are expected to see significant gains
in accessibility through 2040.
While the declines in accessibility by car in some parts of the region are due
mainly to congestion -- as highways become more crowded, it simply takes longer to
get places -- the stark differences between these areas result mostly from
imbalanced job growth. In the westernmost counties -- Loudoun, Fairfax, and Prince
William -- job growth is expected to outpace growth in the easternmost counties -Prince George's and Charles -- by more than 300,000 jobs over the next three
decades.
When it comes to transit, the analysis shows much less regional variation in the
changes in accessibility.
Gains of up to 100,000 jobs are expected throughout much of the region, since
transit does not suffer nearly as much from delays as a result of overcrowding as
roadways do. But some areas are forecast to see declines in accessibility by
transit, much of it resulting from roadway congestion making it harder to access
transit stations by car or bus.
This picture of the region's transportation future is not necessarily an inevitable

one. The TPB's analysis is based on current planning and funding trajectories
outlined in the CLRP, which reflects current forecasts of population and job growth
and the major transportation improvements that the state and local jurisdictions in
the region currently expect to build or implement over the next three decades.
Several of the TPB's existing planning activities -- including the Transportation/

Land-Use Connections program, or TLC, and a planned study
<http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/link.aspx?l=17&d=348&mid=1270&m=1159> under the
federal Transportation, Community, and System Preservation program, or TCSP -- aim
to shift the current trajectories somewhat by encouraging development patterns that
bring jobs and housing closer together and shift future development into areas near
current or planned transit stations, and by improving multimodal transportation
options.
The TPB's analysis of future job accessibility in the region is an important one
because it shows what current forecasts and planning imply for future economic
opportunity for the region's residents. As the region adds 1.1 million jobs by
2040, a drop in the average number of jobs that are reasonably accessible by car -with significant losses on the eastern side of the region -- is a call to action
for planners and decision-makers.
________________________________
The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB) is the metropolitan
planning organization (MPO) for the Washington region. The TPB is responsible for
directing the continuing transportation planning process carried out cooperatively
by the states and the local communities in the region. The TPB is staffed by the
Department of Transportation Planning of the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments.
________________________________
777 North Capitol St NE, Ste 300
www.mwcog.org/transportation
Washington DC 20002
202-962-3200
<http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/img.aspx?d=348&mid=1270&m=1159&r=67695>

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: Wednesday Presentation
Not in office and can't open. Can I review first thing wednesday?
________________________________
From: Street, Thomas
To: L. Mark Winston
Sent: Mon Dec 31 14:22:22 2012
Subject: Wednesday Presentation
What do you think?
Thomas J. Street
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Montgomery County Government
Executive Office Bldg., 2nd Fl.
101 Monroe St.
Rockville, MD
20850
Ph: (240) 777-2559

Cell: (301) 300-3031

Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 9:24 AM
To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Testimony on January 15th
Attachments:
County Executive request for $1 million for Rapid Transit
studies.pdf
12-30-12
Tom: Good morning. I recommend that you take a look at Dave McDonoughs comments
and David Haucks as well. You are probably the best person to respond to
McDonoughs items 2, 3 and 4 (the CEs request answers the first). I am going to
ask David Hauck for his thoughts on why the studies proposed are not the right ones
and which studies he would perform. Depending on his response, we may want to
present some thoughts on that to the Steering Committee (I hope the appropriation
adopted will be flexible enough to allow for modifications). I will also express
the opinion to David that he should continue to testify on behalf of the Sierra
Club if he wishes but also that he should mention that he was a member of the
Task Force and to the extent we coordinate what we will all say he could also add
some things from the TTF perspective. I am available to talk tomorrow if you wish.
Should be in the office early and on cell thereafter. Thanks. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston; 'dmcdonough@jhu.edu'; 'djwilhelm@verizon.net'
Cc: 'Jonathan@Percontee.com'; 'dwilhelm@mitre.org'; Tina Slater;
'fwaters@Lerner.com'; 'jsachs@mcccmd.com'; 'mbalcombe@ggchamber.org'; Tom Street
I agree
ones at this time.
David Hauck
________________________________
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 12:04:58 -0500
________________________________
Sent: Sat Dec 29 11:52:27 2012
Mark,
forward.

3. why now ?
and
GO REDSKINS !
David
David McDonough
Johns
Hopkins Real Estate
Cell: (410) 491-3746

dmcdonough@jhu.edu
Sent from my iPad

________________________________
To: 'Jonathan Genn'

<image001.jpg>
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston


cover.

Some suggestions:
Balcombe
McDonough.
Jonathan

and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office:
301-622-0100
Mobile:
410-935-2599
Email:
Sent from my iPhone

12-29-12

Year.
Mark
<image001.jpg>
From: David Hauck [hauck_d@msn.com]

To:
Mark Winston; 'dmcdonough@jhu.edu'; 'djwilhelm@verizon.net'
Cc:
'Jonathan@Percontee.com'; 'dwilhelm@mitre.org'; Tina Slater;
'fwaters@Lerner.com'; 'jsachs@mcccmd.com'; 'mbalcombe@ggchamber.org'; Street,
Thomas
Subject:
RE: Testimony on January 15th
Attachments:
County Executive request for $1 million for Rapid Transit
studies.pdf
I agree
ones at this time.
David Hauck
________________________________
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 12:04:58 -0500
________________________________
Sent: Sat Dec 29 11:52:27 2012
Mark,
forward.
3. why now ?
and
GO REDSKINS !
David
David McDonough
Johns Hopkins Real Estate
Cell: (410) 491-3746
dmcdonough@jhu.edu
Sent from my iPad
________________________________
To: 'Jonathan Genn'
hauck_d@msn.com; Jonathan Sachs; mbalcombe@ggchamber.org
<mailto:mbalcombe@ggchamber.org> ; Street, Thomas

<image001.jpg>
________________________________

To: L. Mark Winston


cover.

Some suggestions:
Balcombe
McDonough.
Jonathan

and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office:
301-622-0100
Mobile:
410-935-2599
Email:
Sent from my iPhone

12-29-12

Year.
Mark
<image001.jpg>

To:
'L. Mark Winston'; 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; 'Wilhelm, Dan';
'Jonathan Genn'
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: FW: Updated Civic Association Information
Mark
You asked for my comments on the CSG plan. My comments follow:
Transit groups: I think they generally support, except for the priority that ACT
took. I expect they are already pushing state funding. On state funding, it is not
the MC delegation but need enough others to get a majority. PG is behind it and it
sounds like Howard. I would think the effort needs to be directed at other counties
in the Baltimore Washington region.
Environmental groups: I would expect them to generally support. Focus needed at

state level, via county groups
Latino: Generally supporters since many Latino must use public transit. I could
always inquire with my limited contacts to confirm my impression
Neighborhood groups: Some of these are where the problems will be. I think it is
worth both groups hitting these people, at least the ones that will be vocal. This
needs to be focused and coordinated.
Young smart growth: Dont know
Grass roots: not sure how valuable this audience is since most dont participate in
the decision making process. Important when we get closer to having an operational
system so they will want to ride the RTS.
Transit Riders: Expect them to be supportive but many probably dont know much
about the RTS.
Business: Key area. I also think it would be worth both groups hitting these
people. This needs to be focused and coordinated.
Dan

Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 8:30 AM
To: Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com); Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com);
Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); 'Jonathan Genn'
Cc: Street, Thomas
Subject: FW: FW: Updated Civic Association Information
Ladies and Gentlemen: I just realized that I had not forwarded the attached email
with attachments from Kelly Blynn at CSG. Please take a look at it since it may
assist us in making judgments concerning the scope of the work plan and program of
CFT. One of the central questions is whether CFT thinks it appropriate to defer so
much of the outreach program to non-business related groups to CSG as Kelly

suggests. I recognize that might eliminate a lot of duplication; however, the CSG
focus may be different from our own and we need to understand that better. When we
figure out how to schedule a meeting (when and whether in person or by telephone),
that will be high on the agenda for discussion. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Subject: Re: FW: Updated Civic Association Information
Hey Mark,
Thanks so much for the update. I also wanted to provide an update of our own attached is an overview of my outreach plan for the first part of the year (up
through the end of May) that I wanted to share with you. It hones in on the
constituencies I think we're well poised to reach, strategies to reach them, and
which pieces are moving so far. I'd love to get your thoughts, and hear what
constituencies and strategies you're considering. Just off the top of my head so
far, I think CFT will likely be a far more credible voice with developers, major
employers who could benefit from the routes, chambers, and local businesses along
the routes. As for the local businesses, I imagine we could do some of that work
as well, or we could divide routes or something like that. Again, just my draft
thoughts on where our natural strengths may lie - maybe we can discuss at the next
meeting, or over the phone prior? Let me know what you think.
As for the executive director, one question I had is, are you planning to hire
anyone else, or just an executive director? I think the attributes largely depend
on your programs if this person will be the only staffer. I'll keep thinking on
it.
Hope you have a great holiday, and thanks for the heads up today!
Kelly Blynn
o: (202) 675-0016 ext. 127 | c: (610) 220-5378
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:22 PM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>

wrote:
12-20-12
Kelly:
The meeting went well. We covered three things. First, our special tax
counsel briefed us on the requirements for us to stay on the straight and narrow
regarding the Rockefeller Foundation grant. Second, we had an extensive discussion
on the attributes of an Executive Director, and a process for the search. [If you
have any thoughts about the attributes of an Executive Director or any specific
ideas of a person please let me know.] Third, we renewed discussion of our
programming and how we may want to modify some of what we described in our
application for the RF grant. We know we will need to obtain their approval of
material changes; however, since we prepared the application in August and
September there have been several important developments and we need to rethink
what we are doing. That is particularly true in light of the fact that CSG will be
doing similar outreach. That places a premium on our carefully coordinating
programming so there is no wasteful duplication. That also enables us to have the
widest possible reach. I would appreciate it very much if you would share your
thinking on CSG programming so that we can take that into account as we consider
our own. Also, we will be meeting during the week of January 7th and hope that you
can attend to participate in the discussion of this subject.
If I dont speak with you sooner, I hope you have a good holiday as
well.
Thanks.
Mark
________________________________
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:59 AM
To: L. Mark Winston
Thanks so much, Mark, much appreciated.
How did the meeting go last night?
Look forward to catching up after the holidays - hope you have a good one,
Kelly Blynn
o: (202) 675-0016 ext. 127 | c: (610) 220-5378
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:52 AM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>

wrote:
Kelly: Sorry for the late notice. It just occurred to me that you being at our
meetings would be a good way to coordinate efforts as things get going. I will let
you know of future meetings as early as possible. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Alex Posorske
Hey Mark,
Thanks so much for the invite, I'd love to be able to attend, but am hosting a
housewarming party tomorrow night which I can't really move at this point. I'd
love to make it to future meetings however, so please do keep me in mind. Thanks
so much,
Kelly Blynn
o: (202) 675-0016 ext. 127 | c: (610) 220-5378

wrote:
Kelly: Our executive committee is scheduled to meet tomorrow evening in my office.

At least two members will not be able to attend so we may not meet. However, if
we do, would you like to attend our meeting? Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Alex Posorske
Hi Mark,
Thanks so much for sharing, very helpful to know what's proposed, and please do
keep us posted on any advances with your grant and hiring. I'm working on
completing a draft plan for our first phase of outreach that I'll share by the end
of the week. I'd love feedback, and would be good to meet in the new year to
discuss how we can play different but complementary roles. Thanks,
Kelly Blynn
o: (202) 675-0016 ext. 127 | c: (610) 220-5378
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:31 PM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>

wrote:
Kelly: A PDF of our Grant Application to The Rockefeller Foundation is attached.
Please respect the confidentiality of this document. As I mentioned briefly, our
expectation is that the full interim board of directors will be in place in the
next 30 days. I expect that the executive committee, in consultation with you and
the Coalition for Smarter Growth, will develop a revised (or at least refined) work
plan and schedule. I am confident that we will be able to coordinate our efforts
so as to maximize our respective resources, minimize duplication of effort, and
successfully engage as many people as possible in our educational activities. I am
interested in any comments you may have preliminarily. Thanks and have a good
weekend. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Alex Posorske
Hey Mark, looking forward to it. Could you send over your plan so far so we can be
aware of it as we're making our plan? Let's definitely sit down again in January
(when I'll have a much clearer idea of our plan too). Thanks!
Kelly Blynn
o: (202) 675-0016 ext. 127 | c: (610) 220-5378

wrote:
Kelly: I expect that we will be using it as well. As we discussed, as soon as
practicable, and when we have time to focus on the issues, we should sit down and
go over our respective tentative plans for outreach and communication as soon as
possible. I will keep you apprised of our progress and look forward to working
with you. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Alex Posorske
This is excellent, and different from what we had - thank you so much!
Kelly Blynn

o: (202) 675-0016 ext. 127 | c: (610) 220-5378

wrote:
________________________________
From: Morrison, Drew [mailto:Drew.Morrison@montgomerycountymd.gov]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 1:49 PM
To: L. Mark Winston; Jonathan@Percontee.com
Subject: Updated Civic Association Information
Gentlemen-
As part of your outreach efforts on behalf of Friends of RTV, I have assembled a

now-finalized list of civic associations in the corridor area. Attached to this email are four items:
--A map of the system with civics
--A list of all civics in the county
--Three excel spreadsheets with the associations grouped by phase.
Drew
Drew Morrison
240-777-2563
Drew.Morrison@montgomerycountymd.gov
Rockville, MD 20850
Montgomery Transit Task Force <http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Apps/cex/transit/>

To:
'dmcdonough@jhu.edu'; 'djwilhelm@verizon.net'
Cc:
'Jonathan@Percontee.com'; 'dwilhelm@mitre.org'; 'slater.tina@gmail.com';
'fwaters@Lerner.com'; 'hauck_d@msn.com'; 'jsachs@mcccmd.com';
'mbalcombe@ggchamber.org'; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: Testimony on January 15th
________________________________
Sent: Sat Dec 29 11:52:27 2012
Mark,
forward.
3. why now ?
and
GO REDSKINS !
David
David McDonough
Johns Hopkins Real Estate
Cell: (410) 491-3746
dmcdonough@jhu.edu
Sent from my iPad
________________________________
To: 'Jonathan Genn'

<image001.jpg>
________________________________

To: L. Mark Winston


cover.

Some suggestions:
Balcombe
McDonough.
Jonathan

and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office:
301-622-0100
Mobile:
410-935-2599
Email:
Sent from my iPhone

12-29-12

Year.
Mark
<image001.jpg>

To:
'L. Mark Winston'; 'Jonathan Genn'
Cc:
'Wilhelm, Dan'; 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; 'David McDonough';
hauck_d@msn.com; 'Jonathan Sachs'; mbalcombe@ggchamber.org; Street, Thomas
Subject:
My thinking is the same as Marks I needs to largely say we support and is needed
to help answer a number of questions everyone has including Executive Branch,
Council and the public.
________________________________
To: 'Jonathan Genn'
Jonathan:
My thought was that testimony would be relatively limited to advocating
adoption of the proposed supplemental appropriation. I dont think we need to

testify in any detail about the merits of the TTF proposal unless others wish to do
so. The argument would be that adoption of the $1 mm supplemental will keep the
planning moving ahead and preserve the Countys options concerning a build-out of
Phase I as proposed by the Task Force and so that we do not lose time as to those
portions of the proposal which are eventually adopted by the Executive and Council
based on the planning. However, those wishing to testify are obviously free to say
what they want and those participating can coordinate what we say. We may also
want to prepare to rebut testimony that may be given in opposition. Perhaps a
telephone conference will be in order once we know who is interested in speaking.
Thanks. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston

there before then, I am willing and able to testify.
Presuming I don't need to be
I would also suggest that if we all testify, Mark should lead off and say that the
TTF members there to testify will be speaking about separate topics, so the Council
will not think we are all going to say the same thing and waste their time. We
should thus coordinate what discrete topics/points we want to make and cover.
Some suggestions:
Need to tell prospective employers that Mont Co has a grand plan for mobility well
into the future --- Jonathan Sachs
How the comprehensive RTV network (even at just phase 1) will make all modes of
non-SOV (including Metro, Purple Line, MetroBus, Ride-on) more effective and
How the CCT will be more effective and efficient (and generate greater ridership)
with a comprehensive RTV network (I.e., not all CCT users will be living and
working along the CCT line, but from elsewhere around the county) --- Marilyn
Balcombe
How the job creation ambition of the Great Seneca Science Corridor cannot be fully
realized without a comprehensive RTV network (not only does the greater economy of
scale make the CCT more affordable, but it would make the Pro formas for the CCT
stronger and more competitive for federal and state funding) --- David McDonough.
The White Flint master plan I faced with the Catch 22 of needed a very high nondriver mode share; but without a comprehensive RTV network, achieving that nondriver mode share is unattainable and thus the County cannot achieve its goal of
We don't have any better, more cost-effective way to move people with creating lots
more impervious surfaces, nor is there any better way to cut down on green house
gas emissions and simultaneously move the maximum number of people for mobility
around the County than the proposed RTV network --- David Hauck.
The East County area borders Howard County, Prince George's County and DC, so it is
especially important to move forward the vision of a rapid transit network to be
integrated with surrounding jurisdictions (including 495 to and from No VA and
Jonathan

and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road

Office:
301-622-0100
Mobile:
410-935-2599
Email:
Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 29, 2012, at 9:26 AM, "L. Mark Winston" <mwinston@glazerwinston.com> wrote:
12-29-12
Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing to enlist your thoughts about giving

testimony at the January 15th public hearing for the County Executives proposed
supplemental budgetary request of $1 million to keep planning moving ahead on Phase
I of the rapid transit system proposed by the Task Force. I hope that each of you
will have the time and willingness to testify offering your support for the
proposed supplemental. While the precise scope of the project to be developed
remains to be worked out, appropriation of these funds is critical to keep the
project moving along so as to not fall behind when a decision is (hopefully) made
to proceed. Please let me know if you are able and willing to testify. If so, and
you have not already done so, please call either Glenn Orlin at 240-777-7936 or
Linda Lauer at 240-777-7979. Again, please let me know of your plans in this
regard. Thanks very much.
Mark
If I do not speak with you before the 1st, have a happy and healthy New Year.
<image001.jpg>

To:
'L. Mark Winston'; 'Jonathan Genn'; 'Wilhelm, Dan'
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: Rapid Transit System Steering Committee
yes
________________________________

To: 'Dan Wilhelm'; 'Jonathan Genn'; 'Wilhelm, Dan'
Subject: RE: Rapid Transit System Steering Committee
Dan and Jonathan: I propose to send Director Holmes an email proposing a meeting
time of 11:00 am on January 7th. It is a little later start time then Dan proposed
but hopefully both of you can accommodate that. I have a 9:30 am meeting on Task
Force business that morning in my office that I expect to last an hour, which would
give me hour to ride the Metro up to Rockville. Does that work for you/ Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston; 'Jonathan Genn'; 'Wilhelm, Dan'
I like the idea of a face-to-face meeting.
I prefer meetings on Monday or Friday since I typically telework those days. The
next best times are late in the day (like 3:00 or 4:00) unless have an evening
meeting. I have CFM meetings on 8:00 till 9:30+ on Jan 4. and Jan 7 at the
Universities at Shady Grove. I have a evening meeting on January 8. A Jan 7 meeting
with Director Holmes in Rockville at 10:00 or 10:30 would be idea for me.
Dan
________________________________
To: 'Jonathan Genn'; Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net)
Subject: FW: Rapid Transit System Steering Committee
Jonathan and Dan: Please give me some times you are available on the 7th, 8th and
9th so I may coordinate with Director Holmes.
Dan:
him.
I have some concerns about Director Holmes response to our memorandum to

There continues to be some apparent confusion regarding the role of the
Steering Committee. As envisioned by the County Executive, the Steering Committee

is a policy making group which will advise the Chief Administrative Officer on
policies under consideration and proposed methods of implementation to develop and
operate Phase One of the network proposed by the County Executives Transit Task
Force. We will want to discuss that and other issues from the exchange of
memoranda. Rather than a continued back and forth with memos, it will be better to
have a face to face discussion and then memorialize the conclusions in writing.
The three of us should discuss the agenda and what we want to discuss in a
telephone conference early in the New Year. Please also let me know when you are
available for that in the period from January 3 through 5. Thanks.
Have a happy and healthy New Year.
Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston; Tyree, Thomas
Cc: Roshdieh, Al; Firestine, Timothy; Street, Thomas; Jonathan Genn; Wilhelm, Dan;
djwilhelm@verizon.net
Mark, I will set a meeting in coordination with you. Tom, see email below. Get
with me on Monday to check calendars and lock in a meeting.

240-777-7170
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 9:51 AM
To: Holmes, Arthur
Cc: Roshdieh, Al; Firestine, Timothy; Street, Thomas; 'Jonathan Genn'; Wilhelm,
Dan; Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net)
Subject: Rapid Transit System Steering Committee
12-28-12
Dear Director Holmes: Thank you very much for your response to the memorandum sent
by Messrs. Genn, Wilhelm and me. Our goal is to participate collegially in the
work of the Steering Committee. To that end, rather than having a continuing
exchange of memoranda, we think it makes sense to schedule a meeting of the people
named on this email (Messrs. Roshdieh, Firestine, Street, Genn and Wilhelm, in
addition to you) to discus several issues. We request that this meeting be
scheduled on January 7th, 8th or 9th, even after hours if necessary. Thanks very
much. If I do not speak with you before the 1st, have a happy and healthy New
Year. Mark

To:
'Jonathan Genn'
Cc:
Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; Tina Slater; Francine Waters; David McDonough;
Subject:
Jonathan: My thought was that testimony would be relatively limited to advocating
adoption of the proposed supplemental appropriation. I dont think we need to
testify in any detail about the merits of the TTF proposal unless others wish to do
so. The argument would be that adoption of the $1 mm supplemental will keep the
planning moving ahead and preserve the Countys options concerning a build-out of
Phase I as proposed by the Task Force and so that we do not lose time as to those
portions of the proposal which are eventually adopted by the Executive and Council
based on the planning. However, those wishing to testify are obviously free to say
what they want and those participating can coordinate what we say. We may also
want to prepare to rebut testimony that may be given in opposition. Perhaps a
telephone conference will be in order once we know who is interested in speaking.
Thanks. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston

Some suggestions:
Balcombe

Jonathan

and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office:
301-622-0100
Mobile:
410-935-2599
Email:
Sent from my iPhone

12-29-12

Mark
<image001.jpg>

To:
L. Mark Winston
Cc:
Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm; Tina Slater; Francine Waters; David McDonough;
Subject:
Re: Testimony on January 15th
Some suggestions:
Balcombe
Jonathan
and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone
12-29-12

Mark
<image001.jpg>

To:
Holmes, Arthur; Tyree, Thomas
Cc:
Roshdieh, Al; Firestine, Timothy; Street, Thomas; Jonathan Genn; Wilhelm,
Dan; djwilhelm@verizon.net
Subject:
Art: Good morning. I have checked with Messrs. Genn and Wilhelm and we propose a
meeting at 11:00 am on Monday, January 7th. I hope that is convenient for you and
the other attendees. Thanks and happy New Year. Mark
________________________________

240-777-7170
To: Holmes, Arthur
12-28-12

Year. Mark

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: Executive Director Position
Attachments:
POSITION DESCRIPTION, Draft 2, 12-20-12.doc
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Subject: Re: Executive Director Position
Mark
Please send me a copy of the final job announcement.
Thanks
Tom
Tom Street, From My iPhone
On Dec 28, 2012, at 4:12 PM, "L. Mark Winston" <mwinston@glazerwinston.com> wrote:
Dan: I agree with you about the qualities that we want - and that being able
to communicate effectively is a must. I just don't want to eliminate some
candidates because of the way we describe the position. Mark
________________________________
From: Dan Wilhelm
To: L. Mark Winston; 'Jonathan Genn' ; 'Tina Slater' ; 'Francine Waters' ;
'Wilhelm, Dan'
Sent: Fri Dec 28 16:04:52 2012
Subject: RE: Executive Director Position
Mark
I think desirable is very weak and that it is saying that the applicant
need not have any ability to stand in front of a group and educate them. Our
primary purpose is education and the executive needs some ability in this area.
There is always the question of degree. Maybe as part of the interview process, we
should do what my department at MITRE has done. When we get to the point of
bringing an applicant in, we have them make a 30 minute presentation to the group
on a subject of their choice (in our case some on transportation would be
desirable) That way we can see how they present material and whether they can
think on their feet in response to questions. I want to avoid hiring someone who
falls flat in this area.
Dan
________________________________
To: 'Jonathan Genn'; 'Tina Slater'; Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com);
Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net)
Cc: Street, Thomas
I have adopted all recommendations except for the use of a must instead of
it being desirable. My instinct is that may discourage some qualified applicants
and we can apply whatever weight we think appropriate to these elements after we
have had a chance to interview people. I would like to keep that language as is
unless I hear screaming from the Ex Co.
<image001.jpg>
________________________________

To: L. Mark Winston; 'Tina Slater'; Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com);
Cc: Street, Thomas
Subject: Executive Director Position
I agree with Dan's last set of comments on the Executive Director position
description. I have no other comments to contribute to that document.
Now, let's just hope the description attracts a great Exec Director!
Jonathan

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Telephone:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Fax:
Cell:
301-622-3507
410-935-2599
Email:
________________________________
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 6:21 PM
To: 'Tina Slater'; Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Wilhelm, Dan; Dan
Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Jonathan Genn
Cc: Street, Thomas
Subject: CFT
12-26-12
Confidential
Ladies and Gentlemen: We can now look seriously for office/meeting space for
CFT. The first question is where should we locate the office? Are any of you
aware of any specific space that might be available? This is an excellent way for
someone to make a contribution to CFT meaning free rent.
Circling back to the question of selecting an Executive Director,

one thing we should probably do is to join the Maryland Non Profit group that Tina
suggested at our last Ex Co meeting. It costs $100 a year for a new non-profit
(going up when we receive our 501c status). Please authorize me to do this. Also,
please give any final comments you may have on the Position Description. I have
asked some people I know if they have any suggestions for candidates and will
keep you apprised of anything I learn.
Please review and give me your comments on the materials from

Kelly Blynn that I sent a couple of days ago. As I mentioned, I am concerned about
the allocation of assignments that she suggests and would like your thoughts about
that as well.
Finally, I will be doing some background work on how we should

invest CFT funds on a short term basis to ensure that we are making a prudent
investment as Mark Weinberg urged in his last email on the subject.
As soon as I have recommendations requiring your formal action, I

will send you an email to that effect. Thanks.
Mark
<image001.jpg>

To:
L. Mark Winston
Cc:
Dan Wilhelm; Wilhelm, Dan; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: Rapid Transit System Steering Committee
Perfect for me.
Jonathan

and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone
Dan and Jonathan: I propose to send Director Holmes an email proposing a

meeting time of 11:00 am on January 7th. It is a little later start time then Dan
proposed but hopefully both of you can accommodate that. I have a 9:30 am
meeting on Task Force business that morning in my office that I expect to last an
hour, which would give me hour to ride the Metro up to Rockville. Does that work
for you/ Mark
<image002.jpg>
________________________________
I prefer meetings on Monday or Friday since I typically telework those days.

The next best times are late in the day (like 3:00 or 4:00) unless have an evening
Dan
________________________________

Jonathan and Dan: Please give me some times you are available on the 7th,
8th and 9th so I may coordinate with Director Holmes.
Dan: I have some concerns about Director Holmes response to our memorandum
to him. There continues to be some apparent confusion regarding the role of the
Mark
<image003.jpg>
________________________________
Cc: Roshdieh, Al; Firestine, Timothy; Street, Thomas; Jonathan Genn; Wilhelm,
Dan; djwilhelm@verizon.net
Mark, I will set a meeting in coordination with you. Tom, see email below.
Get with me on Monday to check calendars and lock in a meeting.


240-777-7170
To: Holmes, Arthur
Cc: Roshdieh, Al; Firestine, Timothy; Street, Thomas; 'Jonathan Genn';
12-28-12
Dear Director Holmes: Thank you very much for your response to the
memorandum sent by Messrs. Genn, Wilhelm and me. Our goal is to participate
collegially in the work of the Steering Committee. To that end, rather than having
a continuing exchange of memoranda, we think it makes sense to schedule a meeting
of the people named on this email (Messrs. Roshdieh, Firestine, Street, Genn and
Wilhelm, in addition to you) to discus several issues. We request that this
meeting be scheduled on January 7th, 8th or 9th, even after hours if necessary.
Thanks very much. If I do not speak with you before the 1st, have a happy and
healthy New Year. Mark
<image003.jpg>

To:
'Jonathan Genn'; 'Wilhelm, Dan'; 'Dan Wilhelm'; 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine
Waters'; 'David McDonough'; hauck_d@msn.com; 'Jonathan Sachs';
mbalcombe@ggchamber.org
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Testimony on January 15th
12-29-12
Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing to enlist your thoughts about giving testimony
at the January 15th public hearing for the County Executives proposed supplemental
budgetary request of $1 million to keep planning moving ahead on Phase I of the
rapid transit system proposed by the Task Force. I hope that each of you will have
the time and willingness to testify offering your support for the proposed
supplemental. While the precise scope of the project to be developed remains to be
worked out, appropriation of these funds is critical to keep the project moving
along so as to not fall behind when a decision is (hopefully) made to proceed.
Please let me know if you are able and willing to testify. If so, and you have not
already done so, please call either Glenn Orlin at 240-777-7936 or Linda Lauer at
240-777-7979. Again, please let me know of your plans in this regard. Thanks very
much.
Mark

To:
'Dan Wilhelm'; 'Jonathan Genn'; 'Wilhelm, Dan'
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Dan and Jonathan: I propose to send Director Holmes an email proposing a meeting
time of 11:00 am on January 7th. It is a little later start time then Dan proposed
but hopefully both of you can accommodate that. I have a 9:30 am meeting on Task
Force business that morning in my office that I expect to last an hour, which would
give me hour to ride the Metro up to Rockville. Does that work for you/ Mark
________________________________
I prefer meetings on Monday or Friday since I typically telework those days. The
next best times are late in the day (like 3:00 or 4:00) unless have an evening
Dan
________________________________
Jonathan and Dan: Please give me some times you are available on the 7th, 8th and
9th so I may coordinate with Director Holmes.
Dan: I have some concerns about Director Holmes response to our memorandum to
him. There continues to be some apparent confusion regarding the role of the
Mark
________________________________

240-777-7170

To: Holmes, Arthur
12-28-12
Year. Mark

To:
'Dan Wilhelm'; 'Jonathan Genn'; 'Mark Weinberg'; 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine
Waters'; 'Wilhelm, Dan'
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: Rockefeller Foundation Payment Notification
Based on the responsive comments, I will look into what we can do through our bank.
While it will be low yield, it will also be safe and we will at least be able to
support the proposition that we are doing the best we can to get some yield from a
prudent investment. I will keep everyone advised before doing anything.
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston; 'Jonathan Genn'; 'Mark Weinberg'; 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine
Waters'; 'Wilhelm, Dan'
Subject: RE: Rockefeller Foundation Payment Notification
Mark
The short-term investment sources I know of pay so little as to be not worth

talking about. There are some funds or stable stocks where we can get around 5% but
we also could lose some in the short term. Until the fiscal cliff situation sorts
out, I would be opposed to those.
Dan
________________________________
To: 'Jonathan Genn'; 'Mark Weinberg'; Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com); Francine
Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Wilhelm, Dan
Cc: Street, Thomas
I agree with Jonathan and will speak with our bank to find out what is available.
I will make a proposal to the Ex Co and we can decide what to do. Thx.
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston; 'Mark Weinberg'; Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com); Francine
Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Wilhelm, Dan
Cc: Street, Thomas
Mark;
Given that we will likely need liquidity of the funds for use in the next 12
months, and given the anemic interest rates that you could possibly earn on such
short-term liquidity investments, I don't think that going to great adminsitrative
lengths to earn another 0.2% or so per annum (what, $50 over the year?) is worth
much effort. We want it highly secure and highly liquid. I would imagine that our
bank can offer a product or product that might squeeze a few more dollars over the
year; but would not be adminsitratively difficult. Please remember that we don't
know when and how much we may need the liquidity if an opportunity arises that we
don't want to miss. [Just as an example, what if we could lease a "Model Luxury
(sexy, as Tina wants!) RTV" to display publicly, which needs an up-front deposit,
and it might take some time to secure a supplemental appropriation from RF. We may
need to advance the dollars before we get the funds from RF. I wouldn't want to
miss out --- or unnecessarily delay --- our strategy to advance our mission because
we didn't have the funds readily available.]
Just my thought....
Jonathan

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Telephone:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Fax:
Cell:
301-622-3507
Email:
410-935-2599
________________________________
To: 'Mark Weinberg'; Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com); Francine Waters
(fwaters@Lerner.com); Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Wilhelm, Dan; Jonathan
Genn
Cc: Street, Thomas
Ladies and Gentlemen: I will consider this email from Mark Weinberg and circulate
a set of recommendations regarding same to the Executive Committee for action by
electronic communication. If any of the addressees of this email have any thoughts
on this subject please let me know at your earliest convenience. Thanks.
Mark
________________________________
From: Mark Weinberg [mailto:paladin@wjtlaw.com]
To: L. Mark Winston; Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com); Francine Waters

(fwaters@Lerner.com); Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Wilhelm, Dan; 'Jonathan
Genn'
Cc: Street, Thomas
Hi Mark, prudent investment of funds that will not be required in the short term is
a fiduciary responsibility, but given the small returns available on virtually any
fixed income investment and the volatility of the stock markets, advice from
qualified professional money managers is a must. Just remember a few things: (1)
any compensation to insiders for investment advice is a problem you dont want; (2)
make sure you retain sufficient liquidity to be able to conduct operations; and (3)
safety of invested funds (including, FDIC and SIPC, for example) is at least as
important as making them productive in the short run. If you wish to discuss this
further, call me. Peace, Mark.
Mark B. Weinberg
Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani, LLP

10411 Motor City Drive, Suite 500
Bethesda, MD 20817
Telephone: (301) 468-5501
Facsimile:
(301) 468-5504
____________________________________________________________
U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice
Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
purpose of (i) avoiding U.S. federal tax-related penalties or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
_____________________________________________________________
Confidentiality
The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended
only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. It is
not intended as legal advice, and may not be relied upon or used as legal advice.
Nor does this communication establish an attorney client relationship between us.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or
any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete
the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you.

To: Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com); Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Dan
Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Wilhelm, Dan; 'Jonathan Genn'

Cc: Street, Thomas; Mark Weinberg
Subject: FW: Rockefeller Foundation Payment Notification
December 21, 2012
Ladies and Gentlemen: Happy first day of winter. The below notification from The
Rockefeller Foundation indicates that the entire amount of the grant has been wired
to our Bank. I will undoubtedly receive notification today from Eagle Bank that it
has been received. You will note that the purpose of the grant is recited in the
notification.
Jonathan: The inclusion of the word bus was something with which the Foundation
was comfortable.
Mark Weinberg: It seems appropriate to invest some portion of the balance so that
the bank is not the only beneficiary of the value of the deposit. I assume that
ultimately the standard for whether we can do so and in what way is whether the
purpose of the investment is to support the charitable mission of the non-profit
entity. Perhaps you could give me some brief guidance on this. If there is an
article with which you are familiar which summarizes what we can and cant do, it
would be good to have it. Once I know what we can do and decide on a
recommendation, I will present that to the Executive Committee and ask for its
authorization to do so. Thanks.
Mark
________________________________
From: OGM_Notifications@rockfound.org [mailto:OGM_Notifications@rockfound.org]
To: L. Mark Winston
Subject: Rockefeller Foundation Payment Notification
This is an automated e-mail to notify you that the following grant payment has been
sent from The Rockefeller Foundation:
Grant
Grant number:
2012 SRC 132
Toward the costs of education, outreach and research activities to help build
support among the general public and civic, business and government leaders for a
high quality Bus Rapid Transit system in Montgomery County, Maryland
Grantee:
COMMUNITIES FOR TRANSIT, INC.
Term:
10/1/2012 - 3/31/2014
Amount of grant:
$500,000.00
Unpaid Balance:
$0.00
Payment Information
Payee:
Payment date:
12/20/2012
Payment amount:
$300,000.00
$200,000.00
Payment method:
Wire Transfer #EFT000393
Payment information:
FIRST PAYMENT
FINAL PAYMENT
If you have questions about this payment, or if you have not yet received the wire,
please contact George Hall in the Foundation's Office of Financial Resources at
212-852-8251 or ghall@rockfound.org.

To:
'L. Mark Winston'; 'Jonathan Genn'; 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters';
'Wilhelm, Dan'
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: Executive Director Position
Mark
I think desirable is very weak and that it is saying that the applicant need not
have any ability to stand in front of a group and educate them. Our primary purpose
is education and the executive needs some ability in this area. There is always the
question of degree. Maybe as part of the interview process, we should do what my
department at MITRE has done. When we get to the point of bringing an applicant in,
we have them make a 30 minute presentation to the group on a subject of their
choice (in our case some on transportation would be desirable) That way we can see
how they present material and whether they can think on their feet in response to
questions. I want to avoid hiring someone who falls flat in this area.
Dan
________________________________
To: 'Jonathan Genn'; 'Tina Slater'; Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Wilhelm,
Cc: Street, Thomas
I have adopted all recommendations except for the use of a must instead of it
being desirable. My instinct is that may discourage some qualified applicants
and we can apply whatever weight we think appropriate to these elements after we
have had a chance to interview people. I would like to keep that language as is
unless I hear screaming from the Ex Co.
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston; 'Tina Slater'; Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Wilhelm,
Cc: Street, Thomas
Subject: Executive Director Position
I agree with Dan's last set of comments on the Executive Director position
description. I have no other comments to contribute to that document.
Now, let's just hope the description attracts a great Exec Director!
Jonathan

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Telephone:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Fax:
Cell:
301-622-3507
410-935-2599
Email:
________________________________
To: 'Tina Slater'; Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm
(djwilhelm@verizon.net); Jonathan Genn
Cc: Street, Thomas
Subject: CFT
12-26-12
Confidential
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We can now look seriously for office/meeting space for CFT.
The first question is where should we locate the office? Are any of you aware of
any specific space that might be available? This is an excellent way for someone
to make a contribution to CFT meaning free rent.
Circling back to the question of selecting an Executive Director, one

thing we should probably do is to join the Maryland Non Profit group that Tina
suggested at our last Ex Co meeting. It costs $100 a year for a new non-profit
(going up when we receive our 501c status). Please authorize me to do this. Also,
please give any final comments you may have on the Position Description. I have
asked some people I know if they have any suggestions for candidates and will
keep you apprised of anything I learn.
Please review and give me your comments on the materials from Kelly
Blynn that I sent a couple of days ago. As I mentioned, I am concerned about the
allocation of assignments that she suggests and would like your thoughts about that
as well.
Finally, I will be doing some background work on how we should invest

CFT funds on a short term basis to ensure that we are making a prudent investment
as Mark Weinberg urged in his last email on the subject.
As soon as I have recommendations requiring your formal action, I will

send you an email to that effect. Thanks.
Mark

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: CFT Position
Tom: Please see my exchange with Drew below. I hope to speak with him in early
January after CFT has begun to sort out its personnel issues. After our telephone
call with Jonathan, I would also like to speak with you about a lengthy
conversation I had yesterday with Keith Haller. Perhaps you could call me after we
are done with Jonathan. Thanks very much. Mark
-----Original Message----From: Drew Morrison [mailto:drew.e.morrison@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 6:23 PM
To: L. Mark Winston
Subject: Re: CFT Position

MarkSounds good. Have a happy New Year, too. I will be back in town for
a few days in the beginning of January and will be in town in March,
too. I'd be happy to meet either time to discuss.
Drew
On 12/26/12, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com> wrote:
> Drew: Thanks for your note. Obviously, we would love to have you working
> on our project this coming summer and, indeed, perhaps even helping form a
> distance before the summer. In any event, I also fully understand your
> desire to broaden your experience. Your decision about that is a personal
> one and it would not be appropriate for me to apply any "pressure" regarding
> your choice. I will stay in touch as our situation clarifies over the next
> few weeks and then we can figure out how you might remain involved (whether
> on a full or part-time basis) as your circumstance permits. Perhaps we can
> get together the next time you are in town.
>
>
Have a happy and healthy New Year. Thanks.
>
> Mark
>
>
> -----Original Message----> From: Drew Morrison [mailto:drew.e.morrison@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 7:19 PM
> To: L. Mark Winston
> Subject: Re: CFT Position
>
> Mark>
> Hope you are doing well. I met with Tom the other day and was briefed
> on the status of the project. Tom asked me to review the ITDP work
> and I have taken some time to do so and will send both of you some
> comments soon for your consideration.
>
> Tom forwarded me the email about working for Communities for Transit
> this coming summer below the Executive Director. That would
> definitely be an interesting and exciting opportunity. I am looking
> at a number of options right now, so I won't be able to give you a
> definitive answer until into the new year. I love this sort of work,
> but as it is my last summer I may want to diversify my resume a
> little. Please let me know what your timeframe is for creating such a
> position.
>
> Regardless of whether I can take this particular role, I would love to
> be involved in some way. If I am working in DC for the summer, which
> is likely, then I would be happy to helpful in any way I can. We can
> discuss that more as we move closer.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Drew
>
>
>

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
FW: Memo from Director Holmes
Are you available to discuss this tomorrow morning?
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston; Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net)
Cc: Street, Thomas
Subject: RE: Memo from Director Holmes
Yes. Perhaps it would be better to set up a telephone conference to speak about

this in more detail. I can set up the dial-in process.
For now, I'll just say my reaction to Director Holmes' memo is two-fold. First
Director Holmes' response mentions a process that is precisely what I found
objectionable in the first instance. I do not think there should be presented to
the Steering Committee a bunch of "done deals," either in the form of scope of
services, who we contract with, or what the results of those studies are. That
makes those who are sacrificing precious time more of a rubber stamp to postauthorize work that was already done. Instead, I strongly suggest that the
Steering Committee meet as soon as possible to have a REAL, SUBSTANTIVE give-andtake retreat (probably 3 hours or so), where we supplement the mission statement we
approved at the first meeting with an honest debate on: (a) the overall strategic
plan (immediate, short-term, and long-term strategies, together with the timing),
(b) all of the separate responsibilities and tasks that we are to accomplish (and
the timing) to meet the strategic plan, and (c) the division of responsibilities
among Steering Committee members into separate work groups.
This leads to my second comment. I don't think we all need to meet as often as our
Memo suggested (i.e., bi-weekly). Instead, I think --- after we have our plenary
retreat to memorialize our mission statement, strategic plan, and division of
responsibilities --- we should have the concurrent work group meetings to advance
our charge from the CE. I don't think it is effective or efficient to have all
Steering Committee members involved in every responsibility (unless the Committee
is just window dressing for a rubber stamp process). Instead, we should capitalize
on the professional, specialized skills of each member of the Steering Committee
and use them most effectively and efficiently for the 10-12 "specialized
responsibilities" that have been assigned to the Sterring Committee. [I know, for
example, I would be dead wood sitting in on a plenary meeting discussing some of
the responsibilities; but I could contribute meaningfully to other
responsibilities.] Only when we ALL agree and know what the overall strategic plan
is, how each of the responsibilities fits into the mission statement and overall
strategic plan, and how we will efficiently deploy the professional expertise of
the participants to each of those responsibilities, will the Steering Committee be
able to fulfill its charge --- presuming the Committee has a real charge and not
just window dressing.
If it were up to me, I would suggest sending a response to Director Holmes as soon

as possible to let him know of these thoughts and suggest that the January 22
meeting be that plenary "retreat" when we get all those things done. To the extent
McDOT was able to advance the ball with work initiated on its own prior to January
22, that might be great --- IF THAT WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR RETREAT RESULTS.
But if that pre-work is contrary to the conclusions of our retreat, then we need to
be prepared to undo that work, which was done under a flawed process. [For
example, they better not enter into any binding contract with a contractor before
our special working group on that responsibility has evaluated everything and
approved. I'm especially concerned about the group of contractors the county uses
on a regular basis, who may have agendas that are contrary to the best interests of
implementing the best rapid transit network. I have already seen instances of such
hidden and not-so-hidden agendas; and it may be that we should contract with others
who have purer intentions in providing the studies and work to implement the best
system.]
As you might tell from this email, I feel quite passionately about this. And if
you want, I could draft such a memo response for Mark and Dan to decide if they
wanted to sign onto it.
Just let me know.
Thanks.
Jonathan

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Telephone:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Fax:
301-622-3507
Cell:
410-935-2599
Email:
________________________________
To: Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Jonathan Genn
Cc: Street, Thomas
Subject: Memo from Director Holmes
Gentlemen: I am interested in your views regarding Director Holmes memorandum
responding to ours, and whether we think it advisable to follow-up in any way
before the meeting of January 22nd? Thanks. Mark

To:
L. Mark Winston; 'Mark Weinberg'; Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com);
Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Wilhelm,
Dan
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: Rockefeller Foundation Payment Notification
Mark;
Given that we will likely need liquidity of the funds for use in the next 12
months, and given the anemic interest rates that you could possibly earn on such
short-term liquidity investments, I don't think that going to great adminsitrative
lengths to earn another 0.2% or so per annum (what, $50 over the year?) is worth
much effort. We want it highly secure and highly liquid. I would imagine that our
bank can offer a product or product that might squeeze a few more dollars over the
year; but would not be adminsitratively difficult. Please remember that we don't
know when and how much we may need the liquidity if an opportunity arises that we
don't want to miss. [Just as an example, what if we could lease a "Model Luxury
(sexy, as Tina wants!) RTV" to display publicly, which needs an up-front deposit,
and it might take some time to secure a supplemental appropriation from RF. We may
need to advance the dollars before we get the funds from RF. I wouldn't want to
miss out --- or unnecessarily delay --- our strategy to advance our mission because
we didn't have the funds readily available.]
Just my thought....
Jonathan
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road

Fax: 301-622-3507
Cell: 410-935-2599
________________________________
To: 'Mark Weinberg'; Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com); Francine Waters
(fwaters@Lerner.com); Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Wilhelm, Dan; Jonathan
Genn
Cc: Street, Thomas
Ladies and Gentlemen: I will consider this email from Mark Weinberg and circulate
a set of recommendations regarding same to the Executive Committee for action by
electronic communication. If any of the addressees of this email have any thoughts
on this subject please let me know at your earliest convenience. Thanks.
Mark
________________________________
From: Mark Weinberg [mailto:paladin@wjtlaw.com]
To: L. Mark Winston; Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com); Francine Waters
(fwaters@Lerner.com); Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Wilhelm, Dan; 'Jonathan
Genn'
Cc: Street, Thomas
Hi Mark, prudent investment of funds that will not be required in the short term is
a fiduciary responsibility, but given the small returns available on virtually any
fixed income investment and the volatility of the stock markets, advice from
qualified professional money managers is a must. Just remember a few things: (1)
any compensation to insiders for investment advice is a problem you dont want; (2)
make sure you retain sufficient liquidity to be able to conduct operations; and (3)
safety of invested funds (including, FDIC and SIPC, for example) is at least as
important as making them productive in the short run. If you wish to discuss this
further, call me. Peace, Mark.
Mark B. Weinberg
Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani, LLP
10411 Motor City Drive, Suite 500

Bethesda, MD 20817
Telephone: (301) 468-5501
Facsimile:
(301) 468-5504
____________________________________________________________
U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice
Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
purpose of (i) avoiding U.S. federal tax-related penalties or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
_____________________________________________________________
Confidentiality
The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended
only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. It is
not intended as legal advice, and may not be relied upon or used as legal advice.
Nor does this communication establish an attorney client relationship between us.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or
any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete
the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you.

To: Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com); Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Dan
Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Wilhelm, Dan; 'Jonathan Genn'
Cc: Street, Thomas; Mark Weinberg
Subject: FW: Rockefeller Foundation Payment Notification
December 21, 2012
Ladies and Gentlemen: Happy first day of winter. The below notification from The
Rockefeller Foundation indicates that the entire amount of the grant has been wired
to our Bank. I will undoubtedly receive notification today from Eagle Bank that it
has been received. You will note that the purpose of the grant is recited in the
notification.
Jonathan: The inclusion of the word bus was something with which the Foundation
was comfortable.
Mark Weinberg: It seems appropriate to invest some portion of the balance so that
the bank is not the only beneficiary of the value of the deposit. I assume that
ultimately the standard for whether we can do so and in what way is whether the
purpose of the investment is to support the charitable mission of the non-profit
entity. Perhaps you could give me some brief guidance on this. If there is an
article with which you are familiar which summarizes what we can and cant do, it
would be good to have it. Once I know what we can do and decide on a
recommendation, I will present that to the Executive Committee and ask for its
authorization to do so. Thanks.
Mark
________________________________
From: OGM_Notifications@rockfound.org [mailto:OGM_Notifications@rockfound.org]
To: L. Mark Winston
Subject: Rockefeller Foundation Payment Notification
This is an automated e-mail to notify you that the following grant payment has been
sent from The Rockefeller Foundation:
Grant
Grant number:
2012 SRC 132
Toward the costs of education, outreach and research activities to help build
support among the general public and civic, business and government leaders for a
high quality Bus Rapid Transit system in Montgomery County, Maryland
Grantee:
Term:
10/1/2012 - 3/31/2014
Amount of grant:
$500,000.00
Unpaid Balance:
$0.00
Payment Information
Payee:
Payment date:
12/20/2012
Payment amount:
$300,000.00
$200,000.00
Payment method:
Wire Transfer #EFT000393
Payment information:
FIRST PAYMENT
FINAL PAYMENT
If you have questions about this payment, or if you have not yet received the wire,
please contact George Hall in the Foundation's Office of Financial Resources at
212-852-8251 or ghall@rockfound.org.
To:
L. Mark Winston; Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com); Francine Waters
(fwaters@Lerner.com); Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net)
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: FW: Updated Civic Association Information
I'm inclined to let CSG do this proposed scope of work. It might save us
Rockefeller Foundation dollars for our work and be less taxing on our time.
Although one or more of us would participate in these meetings to monitor progress
and raise concerns, if and when they may arise, much of the time and expense comes
from organizing these activities. So letting CSG take the lead on these activites
may be cost-effective for us.
I thus think we should take a secondary role int hese activities and save our money
and time for supplementing or modifying our efforts as needed.
Just my thought....
Jonathan
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road

Fax: 301-622-3507
Cell: 410-935-2599
________________________________
To: Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com); Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com);
Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Jonathan Genn
Cc: Street, Thomas
Subject: FW: FW: Updated Civic Association Information
Ladies and Gentlemen: I just realized that I had not forwarded the attached email
with attachments from Kelly Blynn at CSG. Please take a look at it since it may
assist us in making judgments concerning the scope of the work plan and program of
CFT. One of the central questions is whether CFT thinks it appropriate to defer so
much of the outreach program to non-business related groups to CSG as Kelly
suggests. I recognize that might eliminate a lot of duplication; however, the CSG
focus may be different from our own and we need to understand that better. When we
figure out how to schedule a meeting (when and whether in person or by telephone),
that will be high on the agenda for discussion. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Hey Mark,
Thanks so much for the update. I also wanted to provide an update of our own attached is an overview of my outreach plan for the first part of the year (up
through the end of May) that I wanted to share with you. It hones in on the
constituencies I think we're well poised to reach, strategies to reach them, and
which pieces are moving so far. I'd love to get your thoughts, and hear what
constituencies and strategies you're considering. Just off the top of my head so
far, I think CFT will likely be a far more credible voice with developers, major
employers who could benefit from the routes, chambers, and local businesses along
the routes. As for the local businesses, I imagine we could do some of that work
as well, or we could divide routes or something like that. Again, just my draft
thoughts on where our natural strengths may lie - maybe we can discuss at the next
meeting, or over the phone prior? Let me know what you think.
As for the executive director, one question I had is, are you planning to hire
anyone else, or just an executive director? I think the attributes largely depend
on your programs if this person will be the only staffer. I'll keep thinking on
it.
Hope you have a great holiday, and thanks for the heads up today!
Kelly Blynn
o: (202) 675-0016 ext. 127 | c: (610) 220-5378
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:22 PM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>

wrote:
12-20-12
Kelly:
The meeting went well. We covered three things. First, our special tax
counsel briefed us on the requirements for us to stay on the straight and narrow
regarding the Rockefeller Foundation grant. Second, we had an extensive discussion
on the attributes of an Executive Director, and a process for the search. [If you
have any thoughts about the attributes of an Executive Director or any specific
ideas of a person please let me know.] Third, we renewed discussion of our
programming and how we may want to modify some of what we described in our
application for the RF grant. We know we will need to obtain their approval of
material changes; however, since we prepared the application in August and
September there have been several important developments and we need to rethink
what we are doing. That is particularly true in light of the fact that CSG will be
doing similar outreach. That places a premium on our carefully coordinating
programming so there is no wasteful duplication. That also enables us to have the
widest possible reach. I would appreciate it very much if you would share your
thinking on CSG programming so that we can take that into account as we consider
our own. Also, we will be meeting during the week of January 7th and hope that you
can attend to participate in the discussion of this subject.
well.
Thanks.
If I dont speak with you sooner, I hope you have a good holiday as
Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Thanks so much, Mark, much appreciated.
How did the meeting go last night?
Look forward to catching up after the holidays - hope you have a good one,
Kelly Blynn
o: (202) 675-0016 ext. 127 | c: (610) 220-5378

wrote:
Kelly: Sorry for the late notice. It just occurred to me that you being at our
meetings would be a good way to coordinate efforts as things get going. I will let
you know of future meetings as early as possible. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Alex Posorske
Hey Mark,
Thanks so much for the invite, I'd love to be able to attend, but am hosting a
housewarming party tomorrow night which I can't really move at this point. I'd
love to make it to future meetings however, so please do keep me in mind. Thanks
so much,
Kelly Blynn
o: (202) 675-0016 ext. 127 | c: (610) 220-5378

wrote:
Kelly: Our executive committee is scheduled to meet tomorrow evening in my office.
At least two members will not be able to attend so we may not meet. However, if
we do, would you like to attend our meeting? Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Alex Posorske
Hi Mark,
Thanks so much for sharing, very helpful to know what's proposed, and please do
keep us posted on any advances with your grant and hiring. I'm working on
completing a draft plan for our first phase of outreach that I'll share by the end
of the week. I'd love feedback, and would be good to meet in the new year to
discuss how we can play different but complementary roles. Thanks,
Kelly Blynn

o: (202) 675-0016 ext. 127 | c: (610) 220-5378

wrote:
Kelly: A PDF of our Grant Application to The Rockefeller Foundation is attached.
Please respect the confidentiality of this document. As I mentioned briefly, our
expectation is that the full interim board of directors will be in place in the
next 30 days. I expect that the executive committee, in consultation with you and
the Coalition for Smarter Growth, will develop a revised (or at least refined) work
plan and schedule. I am confident that we will be able to coordinate our efforts
so as to maximize our respective resources, minimize duplication of effort, and
successfully engage as many people as possible in our educational activities. I am
interested in any comments you may have preliminarily. Thanks and have a good
weekend. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Alex Posorske
Hey Mark, looking forward to it. Could you send over your plan so far so we can be
aware of it as we're making our plan? Let's definitely sit down again in January
(when I'll have a much clearer idea of our plan too). Thanks!
Kelly Blynn
o: (202) 675-0016 ext. 127 | c: (610) 220-5378

wrote:
Kelly: I expect that we will be using it as well. As we discussed, as soon as

practicable, and when we have time to focus on the issues, we should sit down and
go over our respective tentative plans for outreach and communication as soon as
possible. I will keep you apprised of our progress and look forward to working
with you. Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Alex Posorske
This is excellent, and different from what we had - thank you so much!
Kelly Blynn
o: (202) 675-0016 ext. 127 | c: (610) 220-5378

wrote:
________________________________
From: Morrison, Drew [mailto:Drew.Morrison@montgomerycountymd.gov]
To: L. Mark Winston; Jonathan@Percontee.com
Subject: Updated Civic Association Information
Gentlemen-
As part of your outreach efforts on behalf of Friends of RTV, I have assembled a

now-finalized list of civic associations in the corridor area. Attached to this e-
mail are four items:

--A map of the system with civics
--A list of all civics in the county
--Three excel spreadsheets with the associations grouped by phase.
Drew
Drew Morrison
240-777-2563
Drew.Morrison@montgomerycountymd.gov
Rockville, MD 20850
Montgomery Transit Task Force <http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Apps/cex/transit/>

To:
L. Mark Winston; Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net)
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: Memo from Director Holmes
Yes. Perhaps it would be better to set up a telephone conference to speak about
this in more detail. I can set up the dial-in process.
For now, I'll just say my reaction to Director Holmes' memo is two-fold. First
Director Holmes' response mentions a process that is precisely what I found
objectionable in the first instance. I do not think there should be presented to
the Steering Committee a bunch of "done deals," either in the form of scope of
services, who we contract with, or what the results of those studies are. That
makes those who are sacrificing precious time more of a rubber stamp to postauthorize work that was already done. Instead, I strongly suggest that the
Steering Committee meet as soon as possible to have a REAL, SUBSTANTIVE give-and-
take retreat (probably 3 hours or so), where we supplement the mission statement we
approved at the first meeting with an honest debate on: (a) the overall strategic
plan (immediate, short-term, and long-term strategies, together with the timing),
(b) all of the separate responsibilities and tasks that we are to accomplish (and
the timing) to meet the strategic plan, and (c) the division of responsibilities
among Steering Committee members into separate work groups.
This leads to my second comment. I don't think we all need to meet as often as our
Memo suggested (i.e., bi-weekly). Instead, I think --- after we have our plenary
retreat to memorialize our mission statement, strategic plan, and division of
responsibilities --- we should have the concurrent work group meetings to advance
our charge from the CE. I don't think it is effective or efficient to have all
Steering Committee members involved in every responsibility (unless the Committee
is just window dressing for a rubber stamp process). Instead, we should capitalize
on the professional, specialized skills of each member of the Steering Committee
and use them most effectively and efficiently for the 10-12 "specialized
responsibilities" that have been assigned to the Sterring Committee. [I know, for
example, I would be dead wood sitting in on a plenary meeting discussing some of
the responsibilities; but I could contribute meaningfully to other
responsibilities.] Only when we ALL agree and know what the overall strategic plan
is, how each of the responsibilities fits into the mission statement and overall
strategic plan, and how we will efficiently deploy the professional expertise of
the participants to each of those responsibilities, will the Steering Committee be
able to fulfill its charge --- presuming the Committee has a real charge and not
just window dressing.
If it were up to me, I would suggest sending a response to Director Holmes as soon
as possible to let him know of these thoughts and suggest that the January 22
meeting be that plenary "retreat" when we get all those things done. To the extent
McDOT was able to advance the ball with work initiated on its own prior to January
22, that might be great --- IF THAT WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR RETREAT RESULTS.
But if that pre-work is contrary to the conclusions of our retreat, then we need to
be prepared to undo that work, which was done under a flawed process. [For
example, they better not enter into any binding contract with a contractor before
our special working group on that responsibility has evaluated everything and
approved. I'm especially concerned about the group of contractors the county uses
on a regular basis, who may have agendas that are contrary to the best interests of
implementing the best rapid transit network. I have already seen instances of such
hidden and not-so-hidden agendas; and it may be that we should contract with others
who have purer intentions in providing the studies and work to implement the best
system.]
As you might tell from this email, I feel quite passionately about this. And if
you want, I could draft such a memo response for Mark and Dan to decide if they
wanted to sign onto it.
Just let me know.
Thanks.
Jonathan
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Fax: 301-622-3507
Cell: 410-935-2599
________________________________
To: Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Jonathan Genn
Cc: Street, Thomas
Subject: Memo from Director Holmes
Gentlemen: I am interested in your views regarding Director Holmes memorandum

responding to ours, and whether we think it advisable to follow-up in any way
before the meeting of January 22nd? Thanks. Mark

To:
L. Mark Winston; Francine Waters; Dan Wilhelm; Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Websites for listing non-profit jobs
Mark,
As per our mtg last week, I said I'd find out about places to list non-profit
sector jobs, like for our Executive Director. My husband Don talked to Kate
Farinholt, Exec Dir of NAMI Maryland (Don is Pres of NAMI MD) & she said she lists
jobs (she has 5 staff) on two websites & has had very good luck with Maryland
Nonprofits and pretty good luck with Idealist. Below is some more info on both
these websites.
MarylandNonprofits.org
cost of annual membership
-- emerging member $100 for first year , must be in process of filing for 501(c)
-- regular membership for 501(c) group; dues depend on annual budget; for annual
budget in the $400K to $599K range, annual dues are $625
Some of the benefits:
- can post jobs on their nonprofits database (anyone can access, members can post
for free or non-members pay $200 to post for 90-days)
- offers insurance and employee benefits
- discounts of products and services
- FAQ list (open to the public) ; has info on board members, open meeting
requirements, annual reports, travel reimbursement, audits, property tax, Form
990s, insurance, job description of Executive Director, how to evaluate and
Executive Director, policies needed, ethics & accountability code
Checklist "How to Start a NonProfit in Maryland"
http://www.marylandnonprofits.org/dnn/Portals/0/Documents/Educate/NonprofitStartup/
ChecklistNonProfit.pdf
list of membership benefits

http://www.marylandnonprofits.org/dnn/Membership/Benefits.aspx
Idealist.org
$70 per job listing, but your organization must register with them
--- Tina
(who was at the top of the Eiffel Tower 3 hours ago!!!)

To:
L. Mark Winston
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: Meeting on December 26th
In a few moments, I'll send around an outlook calendar appointment with a dial-in
number and password for us.
Happy Holidays!
Jonathan
and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone
Jonathan: 9 am on the 26th is fine. Shall we simply patch the call together
or use a conference line? If patching together, who will initiate? Thanks. Mark
<image001.jpg>
________________________________

To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Street, Thomas
Subject: Re: Meeting on December 26th
Let's do the conference call. How about 9am?

works for me.
Does that work or everyone.
It
Jonathan

and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office:
301-622-0100
Mobile:
410-935-2599
Email:
Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 22, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "L. Mark Winston" <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>
wrote:
Jonathan: Please see Toms note to me below. A 1pm start on the 26th
is probably too late. I need to be in court at 4pm so would need to break away
at 2pm to get ready. It may make more sense to do this by telephone starting, for
example, at 9 am. Thoughts? Mark
<image002.jpg>
________________________________

To: L. Mark Winston
Subject: RE: Meeting on December 26th
Mark and Jonathan
I can be there at 1:00 p.m.

I have an 11:00 a.m. conference call thay
will last at least an hour, maybe longer so I think 1:00 p.m. is safe.
Is that okay?
I am also available earlier than 11:00 for a conference call.
Tom
________________________________
Sent: Sat 12/22/2012 11:13 AM
To: Street, Thomas
Subject: FW: Meeting on December 26th
Will you be able to do something on the 26th?
Have a happy holiday.
<image003.jpg>
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston
Cc: Street, Thomas
Subject: Re: Meeting on December 26th
And if it would be more convenient, I could set up a dial-in number for

us to TelCon anytime before 11am on the 26th. I just couldn't make it to Mark's
office before 11am.
Given that we all have my (admittedly very rough, unpolished) draft

memo and spreadsheets, I think we can accomplish the same objectives via TelCon (as
a back-up plan).
Happy Holidays, y'all!!

Jonathan

and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office:
301-622-0100
Mobile:
410-935-2599
Email:
Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 21, 2012, at 1:35 PM, "L. Mark Winston"
Tom: Would you be available to meet on December 26th between 11
and 2pm in my office to meet with Jonathan and me? I have a court appearance at
4pm so I will need to put some things together before then and take the metro
downtown to the courthouse. Mark
<image001.jpg>

To:
Tina Slater
Cc:
L. Mark Winston; Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Wilhelm, Dan; Dan
Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: CFT Ex Co Meeting summary for December 19, 2012
I obviously cannot comment in what was discussed at the meeting I did not attend!
But I wanted to comment only on the last item regarding the next meeting.
Unfortunately, my schedule is really tight that week.
Jan 8 after 4pm.
I'm only available on Tues,
Thanks!
Jonathan
and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 20, 2012, at 7:23 PM, "Tina Slater" <slater.tina@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark -- Looks good to me.
--- Tina
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 9:02 AM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>

wrote:
To: All: Attached please find a draft of the Meeting Summary from last
nights meeting. Please give me your comments and amendments. Thanks. Mark
<image001.jpg>

To:
'Jonathan Genn'; Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com); Dan Wilhelm
(djwilhelm@verizon.net); Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: Dulles Metrorail Media, December 20, 2012
For me, the most interesting points in the piece are the arguments regarding the
relationship between the tax on residents and the value of the real property. One
difference between the Tysons area and our project is that our project is not
concentrated in one corridor. Some may argue that makes it easier to draw a
correlation between the tax and the benefit. I would argue that while the
increases in value may not be as sudden or dramatic, they will be more widespread
and sustainable over a longer period of time.
On the question of the representation of the residents, again remember that the
situation for the Silver Line is different. In that case a public agency with
representatives from other jurisdictions our involved so adding a resident member
means that local representation will be ensured. In our case, the new authority
will include most if not all of its members as residents of the County. The
comparison is apples to oranges. Just my initial reaction.
Mark
________________________________
To: L. Mark Winston; Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com); Dan Wilhelm
(djwilhelm@verizon.net); Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Thomas Street
(thomas.street@MontgomeryCountyMD.gov)
Subject: Dulles Metrorail Media, December 20, 2012
For your consideration, I have highlighted in yellow below some interesting

insights from a Tyson Corner RESIDENT, who claims not to have any developer
association in Fairfax County, is a smart-growth advocate, and is IN FAVOR of a
residential tax for transit.
There is also a comment that perhaps the residents who are being taxed should have
an elected voice in the process. (I highlighted that in green below.) We may want
to consider that in any independent authority that might oversee the design, build,
operate, and maintain responsibilties of the RTV network have at least one seat for
a representative of the residents, so we have taxation WITH representation.
[Congratulations, Dan. You have just been elected (sentenced) to serve for "life
plus 20 years"!]
I think this article has some good points worth remembering, as we try to educate
people on all these creative solutions through CfRT.
Jonathan

PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Telephone:
301-622-0100 (DC Area)
Telephone:
410-792-4030 (Balt Area)
Fax:
Cell:
301-622-3507
Email:
410-935-2599
Tysons Corner Patch, Tysons Tax: A Bitter But Necessary Pill, December 19, 2012
Tysons Tax: A Bitter But Necessary Pill
Resident says since state "all but abandoned us to find our own source of funds,"
tax in Tysons is necessary but with it should come with more input from the
people who live there.
Controversy has shrouded the planning process of Tysons once again, this time in
protest to the long debated (over two years in fact) tax for infrastructure on all
land owners in the district. At its heart opponents believe the tax is just another
nuisance being imposed on them, and many say it should be the developers who pay
for these costs, as they reap all the benefits. Some feel that Fairfax County's
Board of Supervisors envisioned plans that were grand, but avoided figuring out a
way to pay for it. They believe the unforeseen costs are now being passed onto the
residents.
Those are interesting points, but sadly most who are arguing this case simply have
not been in touch with the discussions and reality of the past three years. This is
not saying they are incapable of understanding what is going on, it is that good
information in context is often much less interesting. Why delve into the depths of
what is involved and has been debated on a tax, when you can simply blame
developers and call the whole plan a boondoggle doomed from the onset.
The Comprehensive plan, and the many months of planning that came there after have
worked towards finding equitable solutions to funding, schedule, and needs in
Tysons. Opponents are quick to point fingers at the most visible object of
grievance, and this is what continues to happen time after time. Even more shocking
is that most of the time the angst is being generated by people who don't even live
in Tysons and are unaffected by these tax options and planning decisions.
At the Board of Supervisors meeting there were residents of Tysons who were against
the tax. Then again, who in their right mind wouldn't try to avoid a new tax? I
mean, the goal should always be to negotiate the minimum absolute need, right? So
with that in mind, I can completely understand the protest to the tax. However,
what these protesters continue to leave out is what the decisions of this Board,
and ongoing funding provided by private developers, have meant to the values and
marketability of their units in Tysons.
Since the Board pushed for the Silver Line's approval home values in Tysons have
risen 25 percent, in some cases 50 percent. This at a time when most of the country
saw values collapse. This is an illiquid value, but it is equity none the less.
Beyond this, the rental value of their property, something that could make them
money, has risen significantly paralleling and often exceeding rates in Reston.
How about the economic well being of the city? During the past three years several
companies selected Tysons as their home to be close to Metro, within state-of-theart buildings, and in an area which is growing and becoming a true urban core for
business. This means more high paying jobs being located within short drives, or in
some cases walks, for Tysons residents. The productivity gained from not having to
drive 30 minutes to get a job is worth thousands of dollars in saved time, let
alone the savings for travel that many who don't have the luxury of a next-door job
market incur. These are all tangible benefits that residents are gaining through
this process.
Now, I do have some serious qualms against the tax. While I am not as outraged as
some that I didn't get to vote for this tax (blame an archaic state law for the
reason why this won't be voted on), I am very disappointed that through out this
process the voice of residents in Tysons isn't being listened to for which projects
are needed, and when these improvements will occur. This has been highlighted by
the disconnect that occurred in opposition to a toll road exit planned through one
of the few green spaces in Tysons. It wasn't just the destruction of the park that
opponents stood against, but the idea that one of the first steps to making Tysons
more urban and resident friendly was to destroy something aesthetic to help
commuters use cars more easily.
I am upset with Fairfax County that they continue to push for Route 7 to be
widened, a project which will cost a half billion dollars and goes against the
purpose of the comprehensive plan to promote safe alternative transportation
options. It is more of the same, and sadly I believe it will be pushed to the top
of the list of early projects that are deemed a "must have" because of the
political connotations of its construction. We residents in Tysons deserve to have
more of a say on Table 7, but instead we must continue to listen to transportation
planners who have only one solution, more pavement.
As an agreement to this new tax, I believe the residents of Tysons should be given
an elected chairman to vote on their behalf for matters involving public works
projects within the district. This solution would ensure that Tysons' residents,
those who are being taxed, are not consistently silenced by the much larger
population of Fairfax living outside of Tysons.This tax is necessary. The state has
all but abandoned us to find our own source of funds, regardless of how many times
Governor McDonnell drops by to champion an accomplishment he had nothing to do
with. Without a change in that dynamic, the big problems we have in Fairfax will
need a local funding source in order to be solved.
I am a resident of Tysons, I plan on being so for many years, and I am for this
tax.
Tysons Engineer is a resident of Tysons and has lived in Fairfax County for nearly
30 years. He is the founder of TheTysonsCorner <http://thetysonscorner.com/> .com
<http://thetysonscorner.com/> , a website discussing community events and
development activity in Tysons. He has no association with development projects in
Fairfax County but is passionate about promoting responsible planning and
communicating smart growth policies to residents of the County.
http://tysonscorner.patch.com/articles/tysons-tax-a-bitter-but-necessary-pill
<http://tysonscorner.patch.com/articles/tysons-tax-a-bitter-but-necessary-pill>

To:
L. Mark Winston
Cc:
Tina Slater; Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm
Subject:
Re: Communities for Transit, Inc.
Mark:
Nice job in pawning off your $1/yr Exec Dir position onto Gus!
Congratulations!
:)
Jonathan
and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone
All:
Please see the below exchange with Gus Bauman.
Mark
<image002.jpg>
________________________________
From: Gus B. Bauman [mailto:GBauman@bdlaw.com]
To: L. Mark Winston
Mark, Id be honored to join you in this worthy quest. Thank you for thinking
of me.
All the best, Gus
Gus B. Bauman
Of Counsel
Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.
1350 I Street, NW Suite 700
T (202) 789-6013 ~ F (202) 789-6190
GBauman@bdlaw.com
www.bdlaw.com <http://www.bdlaw.com>
<image001.jpg>
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This electronic message contains information from the
law firm of Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. and may be confidential or privileged. The
information is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies)
named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by telephone
at (202) 789-6000 or by e-mail reply and delete this message. Thank you.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

To: Gus B. Bauman
12-20-12
Gus: Good morning. I hope that all is well. I am privilege to write you on
behalf of Communities for Transit, Inc. (CFT), a newly formed non-profit
corporation organized for the purpose of public education and outreach, and
performing research, concerning the merits of the development of transit assets in
general, and of a sophisticated surface rapid transit network for Montgomery
County, Maryland in particular.
An important element of the work of CFT will be to educate the

public on how the RTV network proposed by the Montgomery County Executives
Transit Task Force in its May 2012 Report and Recommendations can be a model for a
high performance, integrated, reasonable cost, transit solution for the Washington,
D.C. metropolitan area as a whole.
CFT is in its organizational phase. During this period CFT has

sought funding for its work. I can report to you that we have just learned that
our grant application to The Rockefeller Foundation has been approved. We
anticipate funding of this $500,000 grant before the end of the year. We are
beginning to look for an Executive Director for CFT, and doing other work
preliminary to getting to work.
CFT will be governed by a board of directors. We would be

honored if you would agree to serve on the board, lending your experience and
judgment to our efforts.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.

Thanks for your consideration of this request.
Mark
<image004.jpg>

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:17 PM
To:
L. Mark Winston
Cc:
Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Wilhelm, Dan; Dan Wilhelm
(djwilhelm@verizon.net); Jonathan Genn; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: Meeting of CfRT Executive Committee
Mark et al,
Yes, I can be there tomorrow at 6:30. Re pizza, I'll eat almost any kind of pizza
-- except for anchovies; however, I could pick them off, if someone desperately
needs anchoives.
-- Tina
wrote:
12-18-12
To: All: We should plan on meeting tomorrow evening at 6:30 pm in my office.

Francine is on vacation; however, she will try to join us by telephone. I will
arrange for pizza. Please let me know how you like it. I look forward to seeing
you then. Please let me know if you are able to attend. Thanks. Mark

To:
Subject:
Fwd: TPB BOS Task Force - October Meeting Highlights, Tech Memo One
Draft
Attachments:
BOS Tech Memo One 112612.pdf; TPB BOS Task Force October Meeting
Highlights 111912.pdf
Here is the summary from the October mtg of the BOS (bus on shoulder) TPB task
force. --- Tina
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Eric Randall <erandall@mwcog.org>
Date: Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:04 PM
Subject: TPB BOS Task Force - October Meeting Highlights, Tech Memo One Draft
To: Eric Randall <erandall@mwcog.org>
TPB Bus On Shoulders (BOS) Task Force Participants
Attached, please find the highlights from the October meeting of the TPBs BOS task
force, as well as a draft of Technical Memorandum 1 A Summary of Local and
National Experience with BOS.
With several comprehensive technical reports and guidelines readily available on

bus on shoulders operations, in the technical memorandum we have sought to provide
a concise, high-level summary of key facts and lessons learned about the challenges
of BOS operations. This is a draft version; comments are requested by the end of
the year before we finalize the memorandum prior to the task force January meeting.
These documents, and the presentations from the October meeting, can be found under
the Documents link at the top of the task force page.
www.mwcog.org/bostf
The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 23, prior to the TPB meeting
that day. In the meantime, TPB staff are continuing to work with the participating
agencies scoping potential corridors for BOS in the region.
Please contact me
with any inputs on these corridors, or with other comments.
Sincerely,
Eric Randall
Eric Randall
Department of Transportation Planning
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 300
+1.202.962.3254 <tel:%2B1.202.962.3254>

To:
Jonathan Genn
Cc:
Dan Wilhelm; Francine Waters; L. Mark Winston; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Re: Good Meeting Today with CfRT and CSG
These TPB BOS workshop meetings (I believe they are going to be held every 3 mos -thus next one would be Jan.) are held in the morning before the monthly TPB meeting
(generally the 3rd Wed --- but sometimes the 4th) down at COG hdqrtrs near Union
Stn. They are open meetings which the public can observe.
I will alert you to the next BOS meeting and will forward the e-mail attachments
from the last meeting (its almost a verbatim transcript, and helpful to see what
different jurisdictions are thinking). Also, Al could ask that Gary Erenrich keep
us abreast of the meeting dates, etc. --- MCDOT is a member of the task force &
Gary was very positiviely engaged at the last meeting.
--- Tina
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:34 AM, Jonathan Genn <Jonathan@percontee.com> wrote:
Tina:
I agree that CfRT should be proactively engaged in the BOS discussion. BOS
may need to be one of the arrows in our quiver for accelerating the phasing and
graduating the level of quality in highly constrained areas of our 160+ mile
network. How can CfRT be proactively engaged in TPB process?
Jonathan
and General Counsel
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Office: 301-622-0100
Mobile: 410-935-2599
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 15, 2012, at 1:21 AM, "Tina Slater" <slater.tina@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought today's meeting was very good in laying the groundwork for
figuring out how various audiences react to the RTV idea and sifting through
potential messaging --- all very important.
I also realized that in addition to the Planning Board staff BRT study
and suggestion to repurpose existing lanes for use by RTVehicles (which we
discussed), there is another move afoot that relates to Rapid Bus. --The Transportation Planning Board (TPB) decided in July to convene a
task force to evaluate potential corridors for "BOS" (Bus on Shoulder). BOS might
be used in situations like I-270 (Bethesda across Legion Bridge along I-495 to
Tysons), Route 29 in MD, and other congested locations. These would be Bus-only
lanes (i.e., not HOV). There has been one meeting so far, in Oct., which I
attended. http://www.mwcog.org/committee/committee/default.asp?COMMITTEE_ID=279
(MCDOT is a member of the task force & Gary Erenrich was an active participant at
the mtg)
I point these out as yet other examples of how the region's planners
and transportation advocates are pushing forward solutions where buses are being
seen as an antidote to road congestion, whereas in the past, building new road
capacity was pretty much the only option considered....
--- Tina

To:
Subject:
Good Meeting Today with CfRT and CSG
I thought today's meeting was very good in laying the groundwork for figuring out
how various audiences react to the RTV idea and sifting through potential messaging
--- all very important.
I also realized that in addition to the Planning Board staff BRT study and
suggestion to repurpose existing lanes for use by RTVehicles (which we discussed),
there is another move afoot that relates to Rapid Bus. --The Transportation Planning Board (TPB) decided in July to convene a task force to
evaluate potential corridors for "BOS" (Bus on Shoulder). BOS might be used in
situations like I-270 (Bethesda across Legion Bridge along I-495 to Tysons), Route
29 in MD, and other congested locations. These would be Bus-only lanes (i.e., not
HOV). There has been one meeting so far, in Oct., which I attended.
http://www.mwcog.org/committee/committee/default.asp?COMMITTEE_ID=279 (MCDOT is a
member of the task force & Gary Erenrich was an active participant at the mtg)
I point these out as yet other examples of how the region's planners and
transportation advocates are pushing forward solutions where buses are being seen
as an antidote to road congestion, whereas in the past, building new road capacity
was pretty much the only option considered....
--- Tina

To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Transit Task Force
12-10-12
Tom: Good morning. I would like to discuss scheduling two meetings of the Task
Force to discuss the preliminary recommendations of the Planning Boards staff on
the Transit Corridors Functional Plan (TCFP). Since the schedule for Planning
Board consideration of the TCFP has been delayed somewhat, perhaps it makes sense
to schedule the meetings in January. Lets talk when convenient for you. Thanks.
Mark

To:
'Jonathan Genn'; Street, Thomas; Francine Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Dan
Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Dan Wilhelm (dwilhelm@mitre.org); Tina Slater
(slater.tina@gmail.com); Casey@KauffmanAnderson.com
Cc:
Subject:
RE: Midsize cities on the move
I also received Wes' emails. Have read the following documents: (1) "Midsize
Cities on the Move (December 12 from Reconnecting America); and (2) GAO Report to
the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs entitled "BUS RAPID
TRANSIT; Projects Improve Transit Service and Can Contribute to Economic
Development".
Both reports contain interesting information. The GAO report does not have as much
useful statistical data as I would have liked. A lot of volume but useful
comparative metrics are not there. For example, capital costs per mile are not
calculated. Nor have they developed a metric analogous to the airline statistic of
"cost per passenger revenue mile". Perhaps the data isn't available to do this;
however, those kind of statistics will be very useful as a tool to evaluate
performance and investment value.
-----Original Message----From: Jonathan Genn [mailto:Jonathan@Percontee.com]

Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 12:20 PM
To: L. Mark Winston; Thomas Street (thomas.street@MontgomeryCountyMD.gov); Francine
Waters (fwaters@Lerner.com); Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Dan Wilhelm
(dwilhelm@mitre.org); Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com);
Casey@KauffmanAnderson.com
Cc: Wes Guckert (WGuckert@trafficgroup.com)
Subject: FW: Midsize cities on the move
And a quick follow-up reference from Wes....
Jonathan
________________________________________
To: Wes Guckert
Cc: Wes Guckert
Subject: Midsize cities on the move
Pg16 figure 1- defines High Level BRT is 51% -100% dedicated lanes and at least
BRT features
Service needs to be frequent , convenient , and reliable
Sent from my iPhone

To:
L. Mark Winston (mwinston@glazerwinston.com); Street, Thomas; Francine Waters
(fwaters@Lerner.com); Dan Wilhelm (djwilhelm@verizon.net); Dan Wilhelm
(dwilhelm@mitre.org); Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com);
Cc:
Subject:
FW: Midsize cities on the move
And a quick follow-up reference from Wes....
Jonathan
________________________________________
To: Wes Guckert
Cc: Wes Guckert
Subject: Midsize cities on the move

Pg16 figure 1- defines High Level BRT is 51% -100% dedicated lanes and at least
BRT features
Service needs to be frequent , convenient , and reliable
Sent from my iPhone

To:
L. Mark Winston (mwinston@glazerwinston.com); Street, Thomas; Dan Wilhelm
(djwilhelm@verizon.net); Dan Wilhelm (dwilhelm@mitre.org); Francine Waters
(fwaters@Lerner.com); Tina Slater (slater.tina@gmail.com);
Cc:
Subject:
FW: Midsize Cities On The Move: A Look At The Next Generation Of Rapid
Bus, Bus Rapid Transit, And Streetcar Projects In The United States - Reconnecting
America
WOW! Wes Guckert sent me an amzing treasure trove of powerful information for CfRT
(remember we resolved to rename it "Communities for RAPID Transit") and the CE's
Rapid Transit steering committee work. (See the link below.) Take a look not only
of the article reference in Wes's link, but also all the books and resources noted
in the right hand column. Those other reference materials should probably some of
the first purchases of CFRT.
Looks like great stuff, which would likely show the dangers of the traditional
practice of relying on what are usually wholly unreliabile and inaccurate
predictions of future ridership (especially when based on historic modeling of
isolated corridors and trying to apply those models to an entirely revolutionary
and transformational comprehensive network). But even though it's Sunday, it's
totally inappropriate for me to be preaching to our choir! So I'll just say that
CfRT should probably look into purchasing these resources.
Enjoy the weekend (and, oh, GO RAVENS)!!
Jonathan
PERCONTEE, INC.
11900 Tech Road
Fax: 301-622-3507
Cell: 410-935-2599
________________________________________
To: Wes Guckert
Cc: Wes Guckert

Subject: Midsize Cities On The Move: A Look At The Next Generation Of Rapid Bus,
Bus Rapid Transit, And Streetcar Projects In The United States - Reconnecting
America
New report on BRT !
http://reconnectingamerica.org/resource-center/books-and-reports/2012/midsizecities-on-the-move-a-look-at-the-next-generation-of-rapid-bus-bus-rapid-transitand-streetcar-projects-in-the-united-states/
Sent from my iPhone
To:
Subject:
Fwd: ACT letter on BRT & priority corridors initiative
Mark et al,
I wanted you to know about a letter I sent to the County Council on behalf of ACT.
The following action was determined at our board mtg last week. While I do not
necessarily concur with all parts of the letter, I do agree with some & as
president, I represent our board.
In addition to the letter below, I included a footnote which doesn't currently
appear on our website --- the footnote is included below:
http://actfortransit.org/archives/letters/2012Dec04LtrBRTStudy.html
For more details on priority corridors see
http://www.wmata.com/pdfs/planning/110926_PCN_Report_Final.pdf
<http://www.wmata.com/pdfs/planning/110926_PCN_Report_Final.pdf>
BRT-like bus
services are premium bus services that would speed bus travel by eliminating
stops, including bus priority traffic treatments, and speeding boarding with low
floor buses among other improvements. In addition, this service would be easy to
understand due to well marked stops with special branding, improved schedule
information, and real-time customer information as well. Additionally, the priority
corridors will provide faster service for all routes in the corridor including
local buses and community circulators.
--- Tina

Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:16 PM
To:
L. Mark Winston; Street, Thomas
Subject:
Ike's BRT Study Proposal -- some questions
Mark & Tom,

Could you please give me a little more background on the news about Executive
Leggett's study of BRT?
Right now the Planning Board is doing a study of which
routes would be feasible (ridership, future land-use, ROW), and also engaging in
public outreach. While this will take time (as it must go before the Planning
Board and then the County Council), what different aspects would Mr Leggett's study
be looking at?
Last night we had an ACT Board meeting and people were asking a lot of questions re
what Mr. Leggett's study is about. Questions were asked like --- is the Executive
Branch pitting it's study against the County Council's [i.e., Planning Board's]
study? Given Mr. Leggett's comments about the county not having enough money to do
BRT --- why is he doing this study? Is this a ploy to study it to death? As you
are well aware, in a vacuum, all kinds of theories arise and I was just looking for
a bit more input into the question.
I'm looking for some context; as it would help; "the natives are getting
restless..."
Hope you both had a good Thanksgiving (and that you weren't in the office 3 of the
4 day weekend!!).
Best Regards,
---Tina
301-585-5038, or 240-687-1343
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 3:40 PM
To:
Subject:
Transit Campaigns -- List of Successful Campaign Materials
Here's a website that may be of use to us as we start crafting our campaign for the
RTV -- it's a list of past, successful transit campaign materials, along with their
slogans, etc.
http://www.cfte.org/campaign-materials
Wishing you all a lovely Thanksgiving.
--- Tina
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:55 PM
To:
Subject:
BRT presentation (article) & MoCo Delegation Priorities Hearing
(summary)
Dan Reed, of Just Up The Pike, posted this article Wed Nov 14 on his blog. He
attended the Tuesday night BRT open house at Blair HS. I saw Jonathan there, but
unfortunately I had to leave after about 15 min to go to my monthly ACT mtg.
http://www.justupthepike.com/
Also saw Dan Wilhelm and Bonnie Casper (Mark's wife) last night at the MoCo
Delegation Priorities hearing. The big theme there was Transportation Funding,
Transportation Funding, Transportation Funding --Ike emphasized the need for Trasnp funding for the economic growth of the county.
Roger Berliner quoted George Leventhal saying our county's future is built on TOD,
but without the "T" we have no "D".

Gburg and Rockville mayors said they wanted
restored.
the Highway User Revenue to be fully
Tk Pk Mayor said they support a Trasnp Tax. He said that having the Purpole Line
funded is their Top Priority (he said he wanted to make that very clear --- Tk
Pk/Langley Crossroads will be a large transit center and a stop on the PL). He
cited a mtg this summer where Henry Kay. Executive Director for Transit Development
and Delivery, MTA said that the MD Legislature has danced around this too ong.
Porcari said that there are many good transit projects coming in from all over the
country. He was very pointed about the fact that MD must act NOW.
Heather Dlhopolsky of Grtr BCC-CC said it was vital to replenish the Transp Trust
Fund. The Purple Line is their top priority and has been for 4 decades (I'm not
sure it goes back that far, but.....maybe the initial Beth/SS "trolley" idea does)
Bonnie Casper - Grtr Cap Area Assn of Realtors - said that the two top Realtor
priorities for the 2013 session are Transportation and Housing (more affordable
housing) -- these two are inter-related and vital for economic recovery and future
economic growth. Plus, transportation can be a stimulus for jobs and economic
growth.
--- Tina

Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:10 PM
To:
Francine Waters
Cc:
L. Mark Winston; Street, Thomas; Jonathan M. Genn
Subject:
Re: Communities for Transit
Oh, boo. I'm sorry, I won't be able to make the call as I'm teaching from 4-5:30.
Is there a "recording" feature to the conference call number by any chance? If
there were, I'd be happy to listen to the call later that evening. Just
wondering.......
--- Tina
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Francine Waters <fwaters@lerner.com> wrote:
When: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 4:30 PM-5:30 PM. Eastern Standard Time
Where: Conference Call
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
202-640-7756
Passcode: 466287
From: Winstead, David L. (DC) [WinsteadD@ballardspahr.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 9:42 AM
To:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Emailing: Montgomery County can't afford proposed bus network, Leggett
says WashingtonExaminer.com
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/cdg.dcexaminer.com/local;type=;section=local;subsec=;s
z=1920x1200;pos=14;tile=14;dcopt=ist;ord=123456789?
<http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/cdg.dcexaminer.com/local;type=;section=local;subsec
=;sz=1920x1200;pos=14;tile=14;ord=123456789?>
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/cdg.dcexaminer.com/local;type=;section=local;subsec=tr
ansportation;sz=728x90,950x60;pos=3;tile=3;dcopt=ist;ord=123456789?
=transportation;sz=728x90,950x60;pos=3;tile=3;ord=123456789?>
Montgomery County can't afford proposed bus network, Leggett says
November 12, 2012 | 8:00 pm
Leave a comment
Photo - Traffic is backed up on Interstate 270 in Montgomery County in this 2009
file photo.
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/gallery/articleid/2513297/1/pictures/238206>
Traffic is backed up on Interstate 270 in Montgomery County in this 2009 file
photo.
http://content.washingtonexaminer.biz.s3.amazonaws.com/images/static/authors/Baye3.jpg
Rachel Baye <http://washingtonexaminer.com/author/rachel-baye>
Staff writer - Montgomery County
The Washington Examiner
@rachelbaye <https://twitter.com/rachelbaye> Rachel on FB
<http://www.facebook.com/washingtonexaminer.local>
More Photos
Photo - Buses in Silver Spring (Examiner file photo)
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/gallery/articleid/2513297/1/pictures/2549079> Photo
- White Oak Shopping Center, located on the intersections of New Hampshire Avenue
and Route 29, in Maryland. Greg Whitesell/Examiner
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/gallery/articleid/2513297/1/pictures/2540497> Photo
- Traffic is backed up on Interstate 270 in Montgomery County in this 2009 file
photo. <http://washingtonexaminer.com/gallery/articleid/2513297/1/pictures/238206>
Related Articles

Proposed Montgomery bus transit system could gobble commuter traffic lanes
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/proposed-montco-transit-system-could-gobblecommuter-traffic-lanes/article/2513144>
Montgomery County not ready for 'gold' bus network, study finds
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/montgomery-county-not-ready-for-gold-bus-networkstudy-finds/article/2510621>
White Oak development plans count on rapid bus line

<http://washingtonexaminer.com/white-oak-development-plans-count-on-rapid-busline/article/2508730>
Study finds cheaper way to build rapid bus system along I-270
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/study-finds-cheaper-way-to-build-rapid-bus-systemalong-i-270/article/2500204>
Local officials look at BRT options as transportation budgets shrink

<http://washingtonexaminer.com/local-officials-look-at-brt-options-astransportation-budgets-shrink/article/707726>
Bus network would benefit everyone economically, MontCo officials say

<http://washingtonexaminer.com/bus-network-would-benefit-everyone-economicallymontco-officials-say/article/703946>
$1.8 billion on low end of price for MontCo bus network

<http://washingtonexaminer.com/1.8-billion-on-low-end-of-price-for-montco-busnetwork/article/699201>
Montgomery County planners: Bus system not needed yet

<http://washingtonexaminer.com/montgomery-county-planners-bus-system-not-neededyet/article/677041>
I-270 transit line caught in legal battle over 'Science City'

<http://washingtonexaminer.com/i-270-transit-line-caught-in-legal-battle-overscience-city/article/670781>
MontCo planners explore cramming BRT on crowded roads

<http://washingtonexaminer.com/montco-planners-explore-cramming-brt-on-crowdedroads/article/238356>
Montgomery County lawmakers choose buses for CCT

<http://washingtonexaminer.com/montgomery-county-lawmakers-choose-buses-forcct/article/162694>
Montgomery plans science center for eastern county

<http://washingtonexaminer.com/montgomery-plans-science-center-for-easterncounty/article/115544>
Popular in Local
1.
Former D.C. Council chairman Kwame Brown could get longer-than-expected
sentence <http://washingtonexaminer.com/former-d.c.-council-chairman-kwame-browncould-get-longer-than-expected-sentence/article/2513281>
2.
Montgomery County can't afford proposed bus network, Leggett says
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/montgomery-county-cant-afford-proposed-bus-network-
leggett-says/article/2513297>
3.
Arlington forges ahead with Route 1 streetcar line
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/arlington-forges-ahead-with-route-1-streetcarline/article/2513295>
4.
Gambling expansion comes at West Virginia's expense
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/gambling-expansion-comes-at-west-virginiasexpense/article/2513292>
5.
Long lines reignite push for early voting in Virginia
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/long-lines-reignite-push-for-early-voting-invirginia/article/2513294>
Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett backed away from a proposed multibilliondollar, countywide rapid bus system, warning on Monday that the system is too
expensive to build in a "reasonable" time frame.
Instead, Leggett suggested a significantly smaller system with fewer bells and
whistles than the proposed high-end bus rapid transit, or BRT, system.
The comments came on the heels of county planners' recommendation that the county
build a BRT system in the next 30 years, removing lanes
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/proposed-montgomery-bus-transit-system-could-gobblecommuter-traffic-lanes/article/2513144#.UKEzi4XbYgM> for private cars on the
county's busiest roads so that the high-tech buses can use dedicated lanes to
bypass traffic.
Though Larry Cole, who drafted the Planning Department's proposal, did not offer an
estimated cost for the proposed 10-route system, he said it would cost less than
the 162-mile, countywide BRT system proposed in May by Leggett's Transit Task
Force, a volunteer body made up of county activists and civic leaders. The Transit
Task Force priced its "world class," 23-route system at $1.8 billion, though Cole
said he would expect it to cost between $8 and $10 billion.
Either proposal, however, is more than the county can afford, Leggett said.
"You don't have enough money to get to all of those corridors that are on that list
unless you come into huge, huge amounts of money, and that's not going to happen,"
Leggett said of the two proposals.
Neither Cole, nor Transit Task Force Chairman Mark Winston, returned requests for
comment.
The county should put BRT only in areas being heavily built up, like Rockville Pike
or Colesville Road -- "where we know that traffic congestion is already a problem
or will likely be a problem in the near future," Leggett said.
He said he would pay for those routes by delaying other county construction
projects and reallocating the money, though he wouldn't say which projects he would
delay.
If the county wants to build BRT in the next 15 years, it also would need to raise
taxes to pay for it, Leggett said, though he wouldn't say by how much. The Transit
Task Force proposed property tax increases of up to 15 percent
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/1.8-billion-on-low-end-of-price-for-montco-busnetwork/article/699201#.UKFzCIXbYgM> .
But before the county talks about how to fund the system, it should study whether
it is really needed, said Montgomery County Civic Federation President Carole Ann
Barth. "The assumption from the beginning was, 'How do we do BRT?' not 'What's the
problem that we're trying to solve?' " she said.
And with no state transportation money available, the county should focus on the
projects already waiting for funding, like the Purple Line light rail and the
Corridor Cities Transitway bus line in the I-270 corridor, said County Councilman
George Leventhal, D-at large.
"We don't have money to build anything," he said. "We don't have state money, and
we don't have county money. There is no money."
rbaye@washingtonexaminer.com
Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
<http://disqus.com/?ref_noscript>
ansportation;sz=300x250,300x600;pos=4;tile=4;dcopt=ist;ord=123456789?
=transportation;sz=300x250,300x600;pos=4;tile=4;ord=123456789?>
Local Videos
ansportation;sz=300x150;pos=8;tile=8;dcopt=ist;ord=123456789?
=transportation;sz=300x150;pos=8;tile=8;ord=123456789?>
Most Read
Carney: Re-elected, Obama takes aim at religious liberty

<http://washingtonexaminer.com/carney-re-elected-obama-takes-aim-at-religiousliberty/article/2513129>
York: In Ohio, the GOP puzzles over missing white voters

<http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-in-ohio-the-gop-puzzles-over-missing-whitevoters/article/2513293>
Paul Ryan: It would be great for President Obama to offer some ideas
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/paul-ryan-it-would-be-great-for-president-obama-tooffer-some-ideas/article/2513328>
General John Allen caught sending up to 30,000 inappropriate e-mails to

Jill Kelley <http://washingtonexaminer.com/general-john-allen-caught-sending-up-to30000-inappropriate-e-mails-to-jill-kelley/article/2513327>
Exit polls skip Texas, missing key demographic data

<http://washingtonexaminer.com/exit-polls-skip-texas-missing-key-demographicdata/article/2513289>
Get E-mail Updates
[
][Submit]
RSS <http://washingtonexaminer.com/feed/featured>
WashingtonExaminer.com
Sections
Business
Products
Partners
Today's Paper
http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/get_image.aspx?pbid=31746d87-c731-40648c96-6f1a3abc7471&w=120 <http://edition.pagesuiteprofessional.co.uk/digitaleditions.aspx?tab=0&pid=31746d87-c731-4064-8c966f1a3abc7471>
Share Washington Examiner Facebook link
<http://www.facebook.com/washingtonexaminer> Washington Examiner Twitter feed
<http://twitter.com/dcexaminer> rss <http://washingtonexaminer.com/rss/politics>
News <http://washingtonexaminer.com/news>
Nation <http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/nation>
World <http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/world>
Business <http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/business>
Science & Technology <http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/science-andtechnology>
Politics <http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics>
Politics <http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics>
White House <http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/white-house>
Congress <http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/congress>
Beltway Confidential <http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/beltwayconfidential>
Yeas and Nays <http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/yeas-and-nays>
Local <http://washingtonexaminer.com/local>
D.C. <http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/washington-dc-news>
MD <http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/maryland-news>
VA <http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/virginia-news>
Education <http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/education>
Transportation <http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/transportation>
Crime <http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/crime>
Sports <http://washingtonexaminer.com/sports>
Redskins <http://washingtonexaminer.com/sports/redskins>
Wizards <http://washingtonexaminer.com/sports/wizards>
Nationals <http://washingtonexaminer.com/sports/nationals>
Ravens <http://washingtonexaminer.com/sports/ravens>
Capitals <http://washingtonexaminer.com/sports/capitals>
DC United <http://washingtonexaminer.com/sports/dc-united>
Golf <http://washingtonexaminer.com/sports/golf>
College <http://washingtonexaminer.com/sports/college>
Entertainment <http://washingtonexaminer.com/entertainment>
Food & Wine <http://washingtonexaminer.com/entertainment/food-wine>
Music <http://washingtonexaminer.com/entertainment/music>
Theater <http://washingtonexaminer.com/entertainment/theater>
Movies <http://washingtonexaminer.com/entertainment/movies>
TV <http://washingtonexaminer.com/entertainment/tv>
Wheels <http://washingtonexaminer.com/entertainment/wheels>
Travel <http://washingtonexaminer.com/entertainment/travel>
Health <http://washingtonexaminer.com/entertainment/health>
Tickets <http://www.ticketnetwork.com/ticket/washington-dc-concertsevents.aspx?kbid=6310>
Opinion <http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion>
editor>
Letters to the Editor <http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/letters-
Columnists <http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists>
Editorials <http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials>
Op-Eds <http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds>
Rack Locations
<http://promotions.washingtonexaminer.com/examinerintranet/RackLocations.cfm>
Advertise <http://washingtonexaminer.com/advertise> Terms of Use
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/info/terms> Privacy
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/info/privacy> Circulation Requests
<http://intranet.dcexaminer.com/examinerintranet/stopdeliveryreq.cfm> Contact Us
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/info/contact>
Classifieds <http://dcexaminer.kaango.com/> Cars

<http://cars.washingtonexaminer.com/> Homes <http://homes.washingtonexaminer.com/>
Jobs <http://jf.jobfetch.com/candidate/processcandquicksearch?assoc=811>
http://content.washingtonexaminer.biz.s3.amazonaws.com/images/static/footerpartner-sample.png <http://www.weeklystandard.com/>
http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=7925745&c3=&amQuantcast
Site Meter <http://s26.sitemeter.com/stats.asp?site=s26dcxweb>
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 6:12 PM
To:
Subject:
Article: Considering a New Way to Combat Traffic by Larry Cole, MNCPPC
Transportation Planner
Nov. 6, Larry Cole wrote a BRT article in the Planning Department's blog "The
Straight Line" --- here's an excerpt:
As we considered where to place BRT service, we concluded that it made most sense
to work within our existing master plan rights-of-way by repurposing existing lanes
to serve transit, which will minimize impacts to property owners. By working within
our existing roadway pavement wherever possible, we can avoid large capital costs,
environmental impacts, and the problem of induced traffic. Where we can move more
people in a travel lane via transit than private automobiles, we believe that
repurposing lanes is a more sustainable solution than obtaining more land and
constructing new lanes.
In our analysis, the threshold for dedicated lanes was 1,000 passengers per hour in
the peak direction in the peak period. In areas with lower levels of forecast
transit demand, we recommend that buses generally operate in mixed traffic but
prioritized at traffic lights.
--- Tina

Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 8:18 AM
To:
Subject:
GGW Article: Convert Existing Lanes to BRT, say Montgomery Planners
Thought you'd like to read this
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/16716/convert-existing-lanes-to-brt-saymontgomery-planners/
--- Tina (I'm back and Japan was absolutely stupendous!, but best of all was the
Re-election!!)
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 7:47 PM
To:
'L. Mark Winston'; 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; 'Jonathan Genn'
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Hearing testimony
Attachments:
TTF Hearing comments.xls
All
I took the public comment summary and did several things:
1. Where the written and oral were the same, combined them
2. Attempted to put the comments into subject categories so we group them together
and provide one or more comments on the group. This was not always clean effort.
The results are in the attached spreadsheet two tabs.
I suggest that Tina, Francine and I take a stab at the answers and after we have
good answers provide them to Mark and Jonathan for review. I think that Mark should
not be in the writing for two reasons: he did the bulk of the report and he is busy
of other items.
I suggest we start with reviewing the categories and see if we think they are a
good place to start. I expect that we will want to make some changes as we start
responding to them.
Dan
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 6:57 AM
To:
'L. Mark Winston'; 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; 'Jonathan Genn'
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
RE: CFT
Mark
It strikes me that a very high percentage of the funds are spent on office and
personnel. Maybe a different approach should be considered to reduce this cost. In
CfM, we have a part time person who uses their own spare. We pay for the computer
and cover expenses. The staff cost is in the 25K to 30K range. I question what a
full time staff person will be doing.
Dan
________________________________
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 2:44 PM
To: 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'; 'Dan Wilhelm'; 'Jonathan Genn'
Subject: CFT
08-31-12
Tina, Francine, Dan, Jonathan and Tom: I apologize for missing our meeting earlier
this week but it was in all of our interest that I was not present.
Jonathan and I were able to meet with Stewart Schwartz and Alex
Posorske of the Coalition for Smarter Growth yesterday to review their plans for
their use of their Rockefeller grant, for our thoughts about public outreach, and
for how there can be effective coordination between CSG and CFT to maximize use of
RF and other funds. It was a useful meeting and we are following up on several
fronts.
Jonathan gave me a summary of what you were able to accomplish at

dinner and I appreciate all you were able to cover. I also thank Francine for
arranging for several regular meetings of the executive committee.
In light of Bens comments to our original draft grant proposal on

behalf of RF, your discussions and further thought, I have prepared a revised draft
budget. It is for substantially fewer total dollars than the last draft. This
takes several things into account, in particular the fact that CSG appears to be
performing many of the outreach functions that we were originally contemplating,
and that we can leverage their dollars by participating actively and jointly in
much of what they will be doing. Additionally, RF has suggested that we use the RF
grant money through ITDP for the purpose of doing the special studies we have
identified. This explains some of the reductions. Other reductions are simply
because if we do not have the money in hand it isnt wise to budget for it.
Hopefully, when we have made a little more progress we can begin broadening the
base of those who will offer financial support and modify the budget accordingly.
I would appreciate your comments on the attached because it will help

as I consider how best to modify the text of the draft grant application. My goal
is to have your comments to the budget by Tuesday morning at the latest, get a
revised draft of the application to you by Wednesday, get your comments to that by
Thursday evening or Friday morning, and then finalize and get the revised draft
into Ben by close of business Friday. Thanks.
Mark

To:
'Jonathan Genn'; 'L. Mark Winston'; 'Tina Slater'; 'Francine Waters'
Cc:
Street, Thomas
Subject:
Subdivision Staging Policy (SSP)
Attachments:
GCCA SSP 2012.doc
All
The Planning Board submitted the 2012 SSP to the Council, who will have a hearing
on it on September 18. As part of this, there is new a new Transportation Policy
Area Review (TPAR) process being proposed. It has several things that relate to
RTV:
1.
2.
It separates roads and transit

For transit (local bus), it establishes service levels for coverage, peak
headways and span of service. It proposes different standards for urban, suburban
and rural policy areas.
3.
It proposes fee on new development for both roads and transit that reflect
the cost of building 6 county roads (state roads are not included) and the cost to
improve local bus service. Different fees are proposed for each policy area.
I am bringing this report to your attention in case you think we should testify. I
have drafted a response for GCCA, which is attached. This attachment identifies my
thinking, much of which relates to RTV.
The main document and appendixes can be found at

http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/research/growth_policy/subdivision_staging_policy
/2012/.
There are a number of pages in the main document, but I would start with Appendix 2
(TPAR), on page 7 and then page 16.
Any reaction whether we should testify or my draft letter as it relates to RTV?
Dan

2013 MPIA of Bus Rapid Transit Emails Part 1

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2013 MPIA of Bus Rapid Transit Emails Part 1

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

From: L. Mark Winston [mwinston@glazerwinston.

Perhaps we can talk first thing in the morning.

From: L. Mark Winston [mwinston@glazerwinston.com]

From: Dan Wilhelm [djwilhelm@verizon.net]

The MCCF newsletter for May is attached.

Regarding the Curtis cartoon of Wednesday April 17, 2013

Loved the picture!!

Thanks for showing the traffic jam.

Boo on the slogan!

From: L. Mark Winston [mwinston@glazerwinston.com]

Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:00 AM

Here is a signed copy (in pdf form).

From: L. Mark Winston [mwinston@glazerwinston.com]

From: L. Mark Winston [mwinston@glazerwinston.com]

shouldnt there be an indication somewhere of the permitted delivery means? I would

From: L. Mark Winston [mailto:mwinston@glazerwinston.com]

From: Tina Slater [slater.tina@gmail.com]

as part of the Foundation's work to promote equitable, sustainable transportation

County Executive Isiah Leggett is committed to representation on all of the

Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs

Property Tax Assessment Appeal Board

The deadline for application is May 3, 2013.

From: L. Mark Winston [mwinston@glazerwinston.com]

Thanks for keeping me in the loop.

Sounds like he will do a great job for the CFT.

From: Dan Wilhelm [mailto:djwilhelm@verizon.net]

From: Tina Slater [mailto:slater.tina@gmail.com]

Sounds excellent! -- Tina

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:56 PM, L. Mark Winston <mwinston@glazerwinston.com>

I suggested to David that he speak with his accountant to get advice on

Beyond this immediate task of our finalizing appointment of the

Finally, we also need to focus on the formation of the 501(c)(4)

From: L. Mark Winston [mwinston@glazerwinston.com]

Dear Ben: I am writing this as the Executive Director of the

Thank you for your consideration.

Thanks very much.

Here is the financial report.

From: L. Mark Winston [mailto:mwinston@glazerwinston.com]

Also following up on a check in meeting, re the current grant to Communities for

From: De La Pena, Benjamin

From my earlier email:

From: L. Mark Winston [mailto:mwinston@glazerwinston.com]

Benjie: Attached please find a PDF containing the above-referenced reports.

From: L. Mark Winston [mwinston@glazerwinston.com]

Here is the financial report.

From: L. Mark Winston [mailto:mwinston@glazerwinston.com]

Also following up on a check in meeting, re the current grant to Communities for

From: De La Pena, Benjamin

From my earlier email:

From: L. Mark Winston [mailto:mwinston@glazerwinston.com]

Benjie: Attached please find a PDF containing the above-referenced reports.

From: L. Mark Winston [mwinston@glazerwinston.com]

Also following up on a check in meeting, re the current grant to Communities for

From: De La Pena, Benjamin

From my earlier email:

From: L. Mark Winston [mailto:mwinston@glazerwinston.com]

Benjie: Attached please find a PDF containing the above-referenced reports.

From: L. Mark Winston [mwinston@glazerwinston.com]

From: Francine Waters [fwaters@Lerner.com]

Tina, Francine, Dan, Jonathan and Tom:

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential information intended only

Thanks very much.

From: Tina Slater [slater.tina@gmail.com]

From: Francine Waters [fwaters@Lerner.com]