SB 6333
In CommitteeSenate
Multimodal transp. plan
Concerning the statewide multimodal transportation plan.
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 Washington’s statewide transportation planning process to require more frequent, detailed, and coordinated planning across all modes—driving, biking, walking, transit, ferries, rail, and aviation—while emphasizing environmental review, maintenance of existing infrastructure, and alignment with regional and local plans. It also adds reporting requirements to improve transparency and budget planning.
- Requires the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to update the statewide multimodal transportation plan every three years, instead of the current frequency (which is not specified but historically has been less frequent).
- Divides the plan into two components: state-owned facilities (highways, ferries, paths/trails) and state-interest (aviation, freight rail, intercity rail, etc.), with clear guidance on how each should be developed and coordinated with regional and local plans.
- Mandates that WSDOT identify and document potential environmental impacts (e.g., wetlands, air quality, fish passage) in coordination with local and state environmental regulators, and give them a chance to review and comment.
- Requires WSDOT to report to the legislature and Office of Financial Management starting January 1, 2027, including details on plan completion, which requirements are met, and progress on the state bridge preservation plan.
- Adds specific elements to the state highway system plan: system preservation, highway maintenance (with 20-year cost estimates), capacity and operational improvements (prioritizing efficiency upgrades over new lanes), scenic/recreational highways, and paths and trails.
- Requires the state ferry system plan to coordinate with private ferry operators and regional transportation plans, and to use lowest life-cycle cost methods for asset preservation.
Who is affected
- State and local government agencies — State agencies and local governments involved in transportation planning and environmental review must coordinate more closely with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) during plan development and provide timely feedback on environmental assessments.
- General public and commuters — Residents and commuters benefit from improved multimodal planning that prioritizes congestion relief, safety, and better connections between driving, biking, walking, transit, and ferries.
- Freight and logistics stakeholders — Freight companies, rail operators, and port authorities must coordinate with WSDOT to align freight movement plans with state transportation goals and regional plans.
- Legislators and state budget officials — Transportation funding decisions by the legislature and the Office of Financial Management will be informed by more detailed, structured reporting on bridge conditions, maintenance needs, and program costs.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Prioritizing operational efficiency upgrades (e.g., access management, demand management) over new lane construction will reduce congestion and emissions for everyday commuters and reduce long-term road expansion costs, especially benefiting low- and middle-income drivers who rely on personal vehicles.
TransportationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(c)Formalizing a paths and trails element ensures state transportation funds support nonmotorized infrastructure, improving safety and access for pedestrians and cyclists—including children, seniors, and low-income residents who may not own cars.
TransportationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(e)Mandating environmental impact documentation in coordination with local regulators improves early identification of ecological risks (e.g., wetlands, fish passage), reducing costly project delays and protecting natural resources that support fishing, recreation, and clean water for communities.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)Requiring 20-year maintenance cost estimates provides transparency about long-term infrastructure obligations, helping local governments anticipate state-level funding trends and better plan local matching funds or road maintenance efforts.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(b)Requiring triennial updates to the statewide multimodal plan ensures more frequent alignment with population and employment growth, improving long-term commute reliability and reducing sprawl-driven congestion for commuters across income levels.
TransportationLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1)
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandating environmental review coordination with local regulators may delay project timelines if local agencies lack resources to respond in a timely manner, potentially slowing critical infrastructure upgrades and emergency response improvements.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(3)Requiring 20-year cost estimates for highway maintenance may strain local governments that rely on state highway systems but lack capacity to interpret or act on long-term projections, especially in rural or under-resourced jurisdictions.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(1)(b)Mandating lowest life-cycle cost methodologies for ferry and pavement preservation may increase short-term procurement complexity and compliance costs for small- and mid-sized contractors unable to absorb upfront modeling or data requirements.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2(2)Requiring consistency with local comprehensive plans and regional transportation plans may create administrative friction if local jurisdictions lack updated plans or technical capacity to coordinate with WSDOT on multimodal integration, potentially slowing regional planning.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(1)Reporting on progress toward bridge preservation goals without mandating specific funding or enforcement mechanisms may produce transparency but not actual infrastructure safety improvements, especially if bridge repair needs outpace budget allocations.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(4)(d)
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and middle-income commuters benefit from prioritized operational efficiency over new lanes, reducing commute times and fuel costs; pedestrians and cyclists gain safer infrastructure through the paths and trails element.
Local governments gain clearer expectations about state maintenance funding timelines but may face administrative burdens in coordinating with WSDOT on environmental reviews and plan consistency.
Freight and logistics stakeholders benefit from improved coordination with ferry operators and rail systems, but may face longer permitting timelines due to enhanced environmental review requirements.
State agencies (WSDOT, Ecology, ESD) gain structured reporting duties and clearer environmental review protocols, but may face increased workload and potential budget pressures from 20-year cost projections.
Small- and mid-sized contractors may face higher compliance costs for life-cycle cost modeling and environmental documentation, though long-term infrastructure stability could improve bidding predictability.