HOUSE BILL REPORT

                 EHB 1007

                    As Passed Legislature

Title:  An act relating to state transportation planning.

Brief Description:  Enhancing state‑wide transportation planning.

Sponsors:  Representatives R. Fisher, Zellinsky, Brumsickle, R. Meyers, Miller, G. Cole, Scott, Basich, Dunshee, Wood, Schmidt, Forner, Jacobsen, Franklin, Eide, Flemming, Horn and J. Kohl.

Brief History:

  Reported by House Committee on:

Transportation, February 4, 1993, DPA;

  Passed House, March 1, 1993, 90-0;

  Amended by Senate;

Passed Legislature, April 20, 1993, 97-0.

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Majority Report:  Do pass as amended.  Signed by 24 members:  Representatives R. Fisher, Chair; Brown, Vice Chair; Jones, Vice Chair; Schmidt, Ranking Minority Member; Mielke, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Brough; Brumsickle; Cothern; Eide; Finkbeiner; Forner; Fuhrman; Hansen; Heavey; Horn; Johanson; J. Kohl; H. Myers; Orr; Quall; Sheldon; Shin; Wood; and Zellinsky.

Staff:  Roger Horn (786-7839).

Background:  The statutes of the Department of Transportation do not provide a planning process for incorporating the transportation policies identified in recent years in the State Transportation Policy Plan, the Growth Management Act, and other transportation legislation.  Examples of issues not addressed in statute are the identification of and planning for transportation facilities and services of statewide significance, coordination of transportation facilities and services that cross regional boundaries, and coordination between transportation modes to make transferring passengers or goods from one mode to another more convenient and efficient.

The new federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) identifies several elements that each state must include in its transportation planning process in order to qualify for federal transportation funding.

Summary of Bill:  The responsibilities of the Department of Transportation (DOT) in regard to transportation planning are defined.  The DOT is required to develop on an on-going basis a statewide multimodal transportation plan that includes two components:  (1) a state-owned facilities component that shall serve as a guide for state investment in (a) state highways, including preservation, operational and capacity improvements, paths and trails, and scenic and recreational highways, and (b) the ferry system; and (2) a state-interest component that includes plans to guide statewide coordination of aviation, marine ports and navigation, freight rail, intercity passenger rail, bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways, and public transportation.  The plans developed as part of the statewide multimodal transportation plan must be consistent with one another, the State Transportation Policy Plan, local comprehensive plans, regional transportation planning, and high capacity transportation planning.

Elements to be included in the development of the State Transportation Policy Plan by the Transportation Commission are identified.  The role of the DOT in regard to high capacity transportation planning and regional transportation planning is delineated.

Fiscal Note:  Available.

Effective Date:  Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.

Testimony For:  Putting into statute the requirements for a statewide multimodal transportation plan will promote effective statewide planning by the Department of Transportation.  The multimodal transportation plan addresses a broad array of transportation issues.

Testimony Against:  Facilities and services of statewide significance are too loosely defined and include too many elements.  Including ports as essential public facilities would make cities subordinate to port priorities.  More public involvement should be required in the development of the statewide multimodal transportation plan.

Witnesses:  Charles Howard, Department of Transportation (pro); David Williams, Association of Washington Cities (pro with concerns); Bruce Whishart, Sierra Club (pro); Pat Jones, Washington Public Ports Association (pro); and Paul Parker, Washington Association of Counties (pro with concerns).