HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 2152

BYRepresentatives Walk, R. Fisher, Jacobsen and Crane

Establishing the transportation planning coordination act of 1989.

House Committe on Transportation

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (14)

      Signed by Representatives Walk, Chair; Baugher, Vice Chair; Cantwell, Cooper, G. Fisher, R. Fisher, Haugen, Jones, Kremen, R. Meyers, Prentice, D. Sommers, Todd and Zellinsky.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (6)

      Signed by Representatives Schmidt, Ranking Republican Member; Wood, Assistant Ranking Republican Member; Betrozoff, Patrick, Walker and S. Wilson.

House Staff:Judy Burns (786-7301)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION APRIL 5, 1989

BACKGROUND:

Under RCW chapters 35.63 (cities), 36.70 (counties), and 39.34 (Interlocal Cooperation Act), cities and counties are authorized to join together to perform regional planning functions, including transportation planning.

Under the Federal Aid Highway Acts of 1962 and 1973, urbanized areas, as defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation, must have a "metropolitan planning organization" (MPO's) responsible for regional transportation planning, in order to qualify for federal transportation planning funds and to obtain federal-aid for highway construction projects within the region.

Under this federal mandate, eight MPO's exist in Washington:  Benton- Franklin Governmental Conference, Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Governmental Conference, Intergovernmental Resource Center (Clark County), Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG -- Snohomish, King, Pierce and Kitsap counties), Spokane Regional Council, Thurston Regional Planning Council, Whatcom County Council of Governments, and Yakima Valley Conference of Governments.

The amount of federal money available to the MPO's for regional transportation planning has remained static for the last several years (about $1.7 million per biennium), and thus has not kept pace with increasing costs.

Areas of the state outside of the urbanized areas do not qualify for any federal transportation planning funds, and no state funds are available for regional transportation planning purposes.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  Cities and counties are authorized to create regional transportation planning organizations (RTPO's).  In urbanized areas RTPO's are the same as the existing metropolitan planning organizations (MPO's).  In other areas of the state, an RTPO must:  (1) encompass at least one complete county;  (2) have a population of at least 100,000, or encompass at least three counties; and (3) have as members all counties and at least 60 percent of the cities representing 75 percent of the cities' population within the region.  The state Department of Transportation (DOT) must certify that the regional boundaries conform to the above requirements.

Responsibilities of RTPO's include:  (1) developing and adopting a regional transportation plan which is coordinated with local land use and economic development plans, and local and state transportation plans;  (2) designating a "lead planning agency";  (3) reviewing the regional plan at least biennially; and (4) forwarding the adopted plan, and the biennial updates, to the DOT.

The DOT will establish minimum standards for regional transportation plans and facilitate coordination between regions.  Once a regional transportation plan has been adopted, all transportation projects within the region must be consistent with the plan.

Each RTPO must create a transportation policy board, and allow membership on the board for representatives of major employers within the region, the DOT, transit districts, ports, and member cities and counties.

A formula is set forth for distribution of any funds which may be appropriated to the DOT for regional transportation planning.  Each lead planning agency should receive a base amount for each county within the region, and a per capita distribution based on population within the region.  In addition, the DOT will retain an amount for a discretionary grant program for special planning projects.  Funds not disbursed under the first two provisions are added to the discretionary grant program.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  Legislative intent is expanded.  Criteria for formation of regions is clarified.  Provisions are added to require forwarding adopted plans to the DOT and to require biennial review of plans.  Requirements for the DOT to develop planning standards and to facilitate coordination between regions are added.  The appropriation is removed.

Fiscal Note:      Not Requested.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Kent Swisher, Association of Washington Cities; Steve Lindstrom, Washington State Transit Association; Jim Toohey, Department of Transportation; Renee Montgelas, Office of the Governor.

House Committee - Testified Against:      None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:    In order to better utilize scarce transportation dollars, we need to do a better job of transportation planning at the regional level.  Transportation corridors don't recognize local boundaries.  The eight existing metropolitan planning organizations are required by the federal government to perform regional transportation planning; however, the federal moneys to perform that function have not kept pace with inflation in recent years.  And outside the metropolitan areas, there is no provision for regional transportation planning, nor are any funds available.

This bill (and an accompanying appropriation in the transportation budget) will provide for a modest infusion of state dollars to support the existing regional transportation planning efforts in metropolitan areas.  In other areas it provides guidance for the voluntary formation of regional transportation planning organizations, and will support that activity financially.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      None Presented.