HB 1961
In CommitteeHouse
Motor vehicle revenues use
Directing revenues from fees, charges, or taxes assessed on motor vehicles based on miles traveled on the highways to be used for highway purposes in accordance with the state Constitution.
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 ensures that money collected from fees or taxes based on how far vehicles travel on roads—such as a potential road usage charge—must be used only for building and maintaining highways, as allowed by the state Constitution. It prevents those funds from being used for other purposes like public transit or general state operations.
- Requires revenue from mileage-based fees, charges, or taxes on motor vehicles to be placed in a special fund in the state treasury.
- Limits use of those funds to highway purposes only, as defined by Article II, section 40 of the Washington State Constitution.
- Applies to revenues collected under chapter 46.08 RCW (licensing and vehicle fees) and chapter 46.17 RCW (highway user fees).
- Prohibits diverting mileage-based revenue to non-highway uses (e.g., public transit, housing, or general fund).
Who is affected
- Drivers and vehicle owners — Drivers and vehicle owners who pay mileage-based fees or taxes (such as a potential road usage charge) will have those fees directed only to highway-related uses, not other state programs.
- Transportation agencies (e.g., WSDOT, local road authorities) — State and local agencies responsible for building, maintaining, and operating highways will have guaranteed funding from mileage-based revenues for eligible highway projects.
- State budget and policy officials — State budget planners and lawmakers will need to ensure that any new mileage-based fees comply with constitutional restrictions on how those funds can be spent.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for concerns
Potential Benefits (3)
The bill ensures that highway-focused agencies (e.g., WSDOT, county road departments) receive dedicated funding for road maintenance and construction, potentially improving predictability and reducing uncertainty in infrastructure planning—benefiting all residents through safer, better-maintained roads.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1 & Sec. 2 (new RCW 46.08.270 & 46.17.270)By aligning revenue use with constitutional requirements, the bill reduces legal risk and potential litigation over fund misuse, strengthening the legitimacy and enforceability of future mileage-based fee programs—benefiting all users of the highway system.
TransportationRef: Sec. 1 & Sec. 2 (new RCW 46.08.270 & 46.17.270)Clear, constitutionally anchored funding rules may encourage private-sector investment in logistics and freight corridors by reducing budgetary uncertainty—potentially supporting jobs in transportation-related industries.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1 & Sec. 2 (new RCW 46.08.270 & 46.17.270)
Potential Concerns (5)
By constitutionally mandating that mileage-based revenue be used only for highway purposes, the bill eliminates legislative flexibility to fund alternative transportation modes—such as transit, biking, walking, or rail infrastructure—that many everyday Washingtonians rely on for affordable, accessible mobility, especially in urban areas and among lower-income households who are less likely to own vehicles.
TransportationPeopleRef: Sec. 1 & Sec. 2 (new RCW 46.08.270 & 46.17.270)Local governments and transit agencies (e.g., Sound Transit, King County Metro) would be barred from accessing mileage-based revenue even if such funding would improve regional connectivity, reduce congestion, or support equity goals—limiting their ability to respond to local transportation needs and potentially increasing pressure on local road funds to fill gaps.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1 & Sec. 2 (new RCW 46.08.270 & 46.17.270)The bill may hinder future efforts to reallocate transportation funds toward safety improvements that don’t fit the narrow constitutional definition of “highway” (e.g., traffic-calming measures, pedestrian crossings, or intersection upgrades in residential neighborhoods), potentially undermining local efforts to reduce crashes and fatalities.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1 & Sec. 2 (new RCW 46.08.270 & 46.17.270)By locking mileage revenue into highway-only use, the bill reduces the state’s ability to shift funding toward low-carbon transportation options (e.g., electric vehicle charging infrastructure, transit-oriented development, or freight rail), potentially slowing progress toward climate goals and increasing long-term environmental costs.
EnvironmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1 & Sec. 2 (new RCW 46.08.270 & 46.17.270)Mileage-based revenue could have been used to support transit-accessible, affordable housing near job centers—but under this bill, such uses would be prohibited, potentially exacerbating housing shortages and sprawl in regions where transportation and housing policy are tightly linked.
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 1 & Sec. 2 (new RCW 46.08.270 & 46.17.270)
Who Is Most Affected
Drivers and vehicle owners who pay mileage-based fees gain assurance that their payments will fund road improvements, but may lose access to alternative transportation options (e.g., transit) if those programs are underfunded due to revenue restrictions.
WSDOT and local road authorities gain guaranteed highway funding, improving infrastructure planning—but transit agencies (e.g., Sound Transit) and regional planning bodies lose access to a potential revenue source for multimodal projects.
State budget officials gain clarity on fund usage but lose flexibility to respond to emerging needs (e.g., climate resilience, equity investments), potentially constraining future budget decisions and increasing pressure to find alternative funding sources.
Low-income and transit-dependent households—especially in urban centers—may face reduced access to affordable mobility options if transit funding is constrained, while wealthier suburban drivers may benefit more directly from improved highway conditions.
Freight and logistics companies may benefit from more reliable highway funding, but could face longer-term inefficiencies if the state cannot invest in alternative freight corridors (e.g., rail) or congestion-reduction strategies.