SHB 1823
In CommitteeHouse
Transp. improvement board
Modifying transportation improvement board provisions.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill restructures Washington’s Transportation Improvement Board, updates funding rules for local transportation projects, and authorizes up to $510 million in new state bonds to improve arterial streets and other transportation infrastructure. It also adds new definitions and requirements to ensure projects meet environmental and equity goals.
- Creates or clarifies the purpose of the Transportation Improvement Account in the Motor Vehicle Fund to support mobility, arterial improvements, and maintenance of existing infrastructure.
- Requires applicants (counties, cities, or transit districts) to provide written certification of pledged local/private funding within one year of funding approval, or risk having funds reallocated.
- Reorganizes the Transportation Improvement Board to have 21 members (down from 21 in prior law but with updated composition), including specific representation for counties, cities, state agencies, transit systems, ports, active transportation, and special needs transportation.
- Sets new appointment rules: members appointed by the Secretary of the Department of Transportation from lists provided by industry associations; terms of four years, limited to two consecutive terms.
- Authorizes $410 million in general obligation bonds ($250M + $60M + $100M) for county/city arterial projects and $100 million for broader state/county/city transportation projects, with issuance subject to biennial appropriations and a June 30, 2025 deadline for unused authority.
- Repeals outdated statutes on long-range arterial planning (RCW 47.26.170) and bicycle routes (RCW 47.26.300).
Who is affected
- Counties, cities, and transportation benefit districts — Local governments (counties, cities, and transportation benefit districts) that apply for transportation improvement funding must now provide written certification of pledged local/private funding within one year of approval or risk losing the funds.
- Transportation Improvement Board members and appointees — The board that decides which transportation projects get funding is being restructured in size, membership composition, and appointment process to include more diverse perspectives and ensure geographic balance.
- Washington State Department of Transportation and State Finance Committee — State agencies like the Department of Transportation and the State Finance Committee will have expanded roles in managing and overseeing bond issuance and board operations.
- General public and transportation users — Residents in urban and rural areas may benefit from improved arterial streets, safer multi-modal transportation options (like walking and biking), and better-funded transit services, depending on which projects get funded.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
The $510 million in authorized bonds — $410M for arterials and $100M for broader projects — directly funds infrastructure improvements that benefit everyday commuters, especially in underserved areas where arterial roads are aging or unsafe; this includes better lighting, sidewalks, crosswalks, and signal timing that improve daily commutes for workers, students, and seniors.
TransportationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(b), Sec. 5 & Sec. 6 (bond authorization for arterial and transportation projects)By explicitly prioritizing maintenance and preservation of existing transportation assets, the bill helps prevent dangerous deterioration of roads and bridges — protecting all users, especially low-income residents who rely most heavily on public infrastructure and are disproportionately affected by pothole-related vehicle damage and crash risk.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(c), Sec. 2 (maintenance and preservation of existing infrastructure)Formal inclusion of active transportation and special needs transportation representatives on the board — along with geographic balance requirements (e.g., limiting two county/city officials from one region) — strengthens equity considerations in project selection and may improve access for people with disabilities, seniors, and those walking/biking to essential services.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(f), Sec. 3(1)(g), Sec. 3(11) (active transportation and special needs representation, plus chair election)The requirement to provide geographical diversity in project selection — combined with alignment with the Growth Management Act and Commute Trip Reduction Law — encourages investment in transit-rich and underserved corridors, potentially reducing sprawl and improving access to jobs and services for lower-income residents in fast-growing areas.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2 (geographical diversity requirement and Growth Management Act alignment)The bill’s stated intent to support “environmentally responsive solutions” and require consideration of all transportation modes (including walking, biking, and transit) may encourage low-carbon infrastructure investments — such as protected bike lanes and bus-only lanes — that reduce emissions and improve air quality, especially in urban areas.
EnvironmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a), Sec. 2 (environmental responsiveness and multi-modal focus)
Potential Concerns (5)
The one-year certification deadline for local matching funds creates a hard compliance risk: if local governments cannot secure pledged funding in time (e.g., due to budget delays, donor withdrawal, or administrative lag), funds are reallocated — potentially penalizing smaller or fiscally constrained jurisdictions that rely on flexible local matching but lack rapid fundraising capacity.
Local GovernmentLean industryRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 2 (funding certification requirement)The restructured appointment process — where the Secretary of DOT selects members from industry-nominated lists — centralizes control in state leadership and reduces local autonomy over board representation; this may dilute grassroots input in favor of industry-aligned appointees, especially given the requirement for industry association lists (e.g., WSA, AWC, WPTA) to pre-screen candidates.
Local GovernmentIndustryRef: Sec. 3(9), Sec. 3(10) (appointment process and term limits)The strict 2025 deadline for unused bond authority creates pressure for rushed project selection and may incentivize funding of lower-planning-readiness projects to meet the deadline, potentially reducing long-term project quality and equity outcomes.
Local GovernmentIndustryRef: Sec. 5 & Sec. 6 (bond issuance deadline of June 30, 2025)The preference for projects with the highest local/private match percentage disproportionately benefits wealthier jurisdictions (e.g., Seattle, Bellevue, Spokane) that can more easily raise matching funds, while rural and lower-income cities may be priced out of competing for limited funds despite having greater infrastructure needs.
FinancialIndustryRef: Sec. 2 (priority given to projects with greatest percentage of local/private contribution)While the bill adds dedicated seats for active transportation and special needs transportation, the appointing authority (DOT Secretary) and industry-nominated lists may result in tokenistic inclusion rather than meaningful influence — especially since the board remains dominated by county/city appointees (12 of 21 members) and state agency representatives, limiting the voting power of these new voices.
Public SafetyLean industryRef: Sec. 3(1)(f), Sec. 3(1)(g) (active transportation and special needs representation)
Who Is Most Affected
Rural and small-city governments may struggle to meet the one-year matching fund certification deadline and compete for funding against wealthier jurisdictions due to limited tax bases and fewer private funding sources; they may receive disproportionately fewer awards despite higher infrastructure needs.
Wealthier urban counties and cities (e.g., King, Snohomish, Pierce) are best positioned to meet the matching fund requirement and benefit most from the “greatest percentage of local/private contribution” priority, increasing their advantage in infrastructure investment.
State agencies (DOT, Ecology, etc.) gain expanded influence over board composition and project selection through the Secretary’s appointment authority, potentially shifting decision-making away from local control toward centralized state priorities.
Transit riders, pedestrians, cyclists, and people with disabilities may benefit from improved multi-modal infrastructure and formal representation on the board, but impact depends on whether new seats translate into real influence over funding decisions.
Local contractors and developers may benefit from increased project volume, but the emphasis on local/private matching may favor larger firms with resources to help jurisdictions meet those requirements, potentially squeezing smaller local firms.