HB 2307
In CommitteeHouse
Commute trip reduction/times
Modifying the time component of various definitions for purposes of commute trip reduction.
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This bill updates definitions used in Washington’s commute trip reduction program to remove outdated time-based requirements (e.g., work start times between 6–9 a.m.) and clarify how major employers and affected areas are identified. It aims to modernize data collection and program administration without changing core program goals or thresholds.
- Removes the requirement that employees must begin work between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. when defining 'major employer,' 'major employment installation,' and 'major worksite.'
- Changes the threshold for 'major employer' from 100 employees to 100 full-time employees (no change in number, but clarifies full-time status).
- Updates the definition of 'commute trip' to no longer specify the peak period (6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) as the only time counted—allowing broader commute data collection.
- Revises the definition of 'person hours of delay' to reflect delay during the peak period (6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) but removes the requirement that delay thresholds define affected areas solely by that window.
- Maintains existing criteria for designating 'affected urban growth areas' (e.g., traffic delay thresholds or population over 70,000 with pre-2000 commute reduction ordinances).
- Reenacts and amends RCW 70A.15.4010, updating definitions used in the state's commute trip reduction program.
Who is affected
- Major employers — Major employers with 100+ full-time employees at a single worksite (e.g., large businesses, state agencies, military installations) must comply with commute trip reduction requirements if located in designated areas.
- Commuters in affected urban growth areas — Workers in high-density urban areas with significant traffic congestion may see changes in employer-sponsored commute options or incentives (e.g., transit passes, carpool support).
- Local and regional transportation planners — Local governments and regional planning organizations must update rules and certifications for commute trip reduction programs based on new definitions and thresholds.
- State and public employers — State agencies and public employers with large worksites must align with updated definitions and participate in commute reduction planning.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (4)
Removing the rigid 6:00–9:00 a.m. work-start requirement allows employers to adopt more flexible commute strategies (e.g., staggered shifts, remote work, transit passes for off-peak workers), potentially improving access for non-traditional commuters (e.g., shift workers, caregivers, students) and reducing overall vehicle miles traveled across more hours of the day.
TransportationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), (5), (8), (9)Expanding the definition of 'commute trip' beyond the narrow 6:00–9:00 a.m. window enables more accurate data collection on modern commuting patterns (e.g., hybrid work, off-peak travel), supporting better-informed transportation planning and more equitable allocation of commute benefits (e.g., transit passes for evening/weekend workers).
TransportationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)Clarifying 'full-time employees' reduces ambiguity for employers with mixed staffing models, potentially lowering compliance costs and encouraging participation—especially for businesses that already use flexible scheduling but were previously excluded due to outdated time-based thresholds.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1), (8), (9)Retaining the 6:00–9:00 a.m. peak period for calculating 'person hours of delay' preserves a consistent metric for identifying high-congestion corridors, supporting targeted infrastructure investments while allowing broader data collection elsewhere in the bill.
TransportationLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(10)
Potential Concerns (3)
Removal of the 6:00–9:00 a.m. work-start requirement may reduce program effectiveness in targeting peak-period congestion, since employers could now schedule shifts outside traditional rush hours without triggering obligations—potentially weakening the program’s ability to reduce traffic during the most congested window.
TransportationLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1), (5), (8), (9)Clarifying '100 full-time employees' may increase administrative burden on employers trying to determine FTE equivalence (e.g., part-time staff conversions), especially for businesses with complex scheduling or gig-based labor models.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(1), (8), (9)Implementation may require additional staff time and technical resources for local jurisdictions and the Department of Transportation to update rules, recertify programs, and support employer compliance—costs that could strain local budgets without new funding.
Local GovernmentRef: Fiscal Impact section
Who Is Most Affected
Large employers (e.g., Amazon, Microsoft, state agencies) in designated areas gain flexibility in scheduling without losing exemption from stricter requirements, potentially reducing compliance costs while still needing to meet overall trip-reduction goals.
Shift workers, part-time employees, and gig workers may benefit from expanded commute options (e.g., transit passes for off-peak hours), but only if employers choose to expand benefits beyond legal minimums—no guarantee of improved access or affordability.
Local planners gain more accurate data and flexibility in program design, but face added administrative work to revise rules and certify programs—costs likely borne by existing transportation budgets.
State agencies (e.g., WSDOT, DOC) must realign internal reporting and compliance processes, but benefit from clearer definitions that reduce legal ambiguity and potential litigation risk.