HOUSE BILL REPORT

                  HB 1487

                  As Amended by the Senate

Title:  An act relating to transportation planning.

Brief Description:  Enhancing transportation planning.

Sponsors:  Representatives K. Schmidt, Fisher, Mitchell and Hankins.

Brief History:

Committee Activity:

Transportation Policy & Budget:  2/6/97, 2/18/97 [DP].

  Floor Activity:

Passed House:  3/11/97, 91‑6;

Passed House:  1/16/98, 88-6.

Senate Amended.

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION POLICY & BUDGET

Majority Report:  Do pass.  Signed by 24 members:  Representatives K. Schmidt, Chairman; Hankins, Vice Chairman; Mielke, Vice Chairman; Mitchell, Vice Chairman; Fisher, Ranking Minority Member; Blalock, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Backlund; Buck; Cairnes; Chandler; Constantine; DeBolt; Gardner; Hatfield; Johnson; Murray; O'Brien; Ogden; Radcliff; Scott; Skinner; Sterk; Wood and Zellinsky.

Minority Report:  Without recommendation.  Signed by 1 member:  Representative Robertson.

Staff:  Ahshley Probart (786-7319).

Background:  A number of unanswered questions exist regarding the treatment of state-owned transportation facilities in city and county comprehensive plans and development regulations which are required by the state's Growth Management Act (GMA).

Linking transportation and land use decisions is cited as a goal of the GMA.  For example, the GMA provides that development should be encouraged "...in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner."  However, how this linkage is to be achieved with regard to state-owned transportation facilities is unclear.

The measurement commonly used in transportation to determine adequacy is the level of service (LOS) standard.  The LOS is an engineering formula that measures the flow of traffic on a particular facility.  A LOS standard "A" means traffic is free flowing; an LOS standard "F" means traffic is at a standstill.

Cities and counties planning under the GMA are required to develop LOS standards for all arterials and transit routes.  Some local jurisdictions have interpreted "arterial" to include state-owned transportation facilities while others have not.

Determining the LOS standard establishes the benchmark for determining whether or not the transportation facilities are adequate to support development.

The "concurrency" provision of the GMA states, in part, "...local jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development."

The 1994 Legislature approved a study to address how state transportation facilities should be treated in local comprehensive plans.  Representatives from cities, counties, ports, regional transportation planning organizations, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, the private sector, and the Legislative Transportation Committee participated.  The study, with recommendations, was completed in January 1995.

Summary of Bill:  By December 31, 1999, cities and counties planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) are required to include state-owned transportation facilities in the transportation element of their comprehensive plans.

The Department of Transportation (DOT), in consultation with local governments, is authorized to set LOS standards for state highways and state ferry routes of statewide significance.  Setting LOS standards for all other state-owned transportation facilities continues to be performed by regional transportation planning organizations jointly with the DOT.

Regional transportation planning organizations are required to work with cities, counties, transit agencies, the DOT, and others to develop LOS standards or alternative transportation performance measures.

Transportation facilities of statewide significance are set forth.  These include the interstate; interregional state principal arterials, including ferry connections that serve statewide travel; intercity passenger rail services; intercity high-speed ground transportation; major passenger intermodal terminals, excluding all airport facilities and services; the freight railroad system; the Columbia/Snake navigable river system; marine port facilities and services that are related solely to marine activities affecting international and interstate trade; and high-capacity transportation systems.

The Transportation Commission must designate state highways of statewide significance and submit a list of such facilities for adoption by the 1998 Legislature.

Transportation facilities of statewide significance are deemed essential public facilities under the GMA.

The Transportation Commission must give higher priority to correcting identified deficiencies on transportation facilities of statewide significance.

EFFECT OF SENATE AMENDMENT(S): Island counties are required to have state ferries and state highways in their comprehensive plan.  These state facilities are required to meet local plan concurrency requirements.

Technical amendments are made that adjust the original effective dates.

Appropriation:  None.

Fiscal Note:  Not requested.

Effective Date:  The bill contains several effective dates.  Please refer to the bill.

Testimony For:  This bill represents a reasonable compromise between state and local governmental interests.  Although, ultimately, the Department of Transportation would like to see concurrency on state transportation facilities because it would provide linkage between land use and transportation, the department recognizes that there are problems with concurrency, particularly in linking individual development impacts to freeways.  Airports should be included as transportation facilities of statewide significance and should be subject to comprehensive planning requirements.  Adequate mitigation needs to be provided for local communities to curtail the negative impacts from transportation facilities of statewide significance.  The regional transportation planning organizations need more funding to meet the requirements imposed by this legislation.

Testimony Against:  None.

Testified:  Representative Karen Keiser (pro/with concerns); Judy Wilson, Thurston Regional Planning Council (pro/with concerns); Charlie Howard, Department of Transportation; Scott Taylor, Washington Public Ports Association; Mayor Charles Booth, city of Auburn (pro/with concerns); Stan Finkelstein, Association of Washington Cities; and Ron Main, Regional Transit Authority