HOUSE BILL REPORT

SHB 1575

As Passed House:

February 23, 2009

Title: An act relating to a state route number 2 route development plan.

Brief Description: Requiring a state route number 2 route development plan.

Sponsors: House Committee on Transportation (originally sponsored by Representatives Sells, McCoy, Kristiansen, Hope, Pearson, Dunshee and Liias).

Brief History:

Committee Activity:

Transportation: 2/4/09, 2/10/09 [DPS].

Floor Activity

Passed House: 2/23/09, 92-0.

Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by 24 members: Representatives Clibborn, Chair; Liias, Vice Chair; Roach, Ranking Minority Member; Armstrong, Campbell, Cox, Eddy, Ericksen, Finn, Herrera, Johnson, Klippert, Kristiansen, Moeller, Rolfes, Sells, Shea, Simpson, Springer, Takko, Upthegrove, Wallace, Williams and Wood.

Staff: Christie Parker (786-7322)

Background:

Route Development Plans (RDPs) are planning studies that serve to create a long-term vision for a corridor. Within the study area, existing and future transportation-related problems are identified and solutions are proposed. Corridor lengths may vary from a few miles to an entire highway route and proposed solutions may include several alternatives. These plans are part of the Washington State Department of Transportation long-range planning program and are intended to support local jurisdictions in implementation of the Growth Management Act.

The RDPs are sometimes called "Corridor Planning Studies." The studies include analysis of operating conditions, environmental issues, population and land use changes, and customer needs, as well as right-of-way and other issues affecting the future of a state highway and its neighbors. The RDPs do contain a list of potential safety and mobility improvements, but usually do not provide a budget, project designs or complete cost estimates required to build the improvements. The RDPs can be used by local jurisdictions to solicit funding for community supported and prioritized projects.

United States Route 2 (US Route 2) extends for 323 miles in Washington and then continues into Idaho; the terminus of the western segment of US Route 2 is in Michigan. A RDP for 47 miles of US Route 2 in Washington was completed in November 2007. The study began at mile post 3.5 and ended at mile post 50. The study identified 56 projects that would improve the route at a cost in excess of $1 billion.

Summary of Substitute Bill:

The bill directs the Washington State Department of Transportation to write a RDP on US Route 2 from the Port of Everett/Naval Station to the State Route 9 (SR 9) interchange near the city of Snohomish. The bill is null and void if funding is not provided in the Transportation Appropriations Act by June 9, 2009. The bill expires July 1, 2011.

Appropriation: None.

Fiscal Note: Not requested.

Effective Date: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of the session in which the bill is passed. However, the bill is null and void if not funded in the budget.

Staff Summary of Public Testimony:

(In support) Snohomish County and the City of Everett support the bill and have committed $200,000 each for this RDP. This study is an important partnership and will provide information that describes what future projects should be constructed; this will allow the entities to advocate for future funding requests. The study area is five miles, of which 2.5 miles is the trestle. The trestle was built in the mid-1960s and is not designed to today's seismic standards. This segment of US Route 2 is important to Boeing, Interstate 5, and freight mobility. When SR 9 was closed due to last December's storms, US Route 2 was the only way to cross the valley.

(Opposed) None.

Persons Testifying: Representative Sells, prime sponsor; Steve Thomsen, Snohomish County; Ryan Sass, City of Everett; Patrick Pierce, Everett Area Chamber of Commerce; and Kevin Weed, Snohomish County Committee for Improved Transportation.

Persons Signed In To Testify But Not Testifying: None.