REPORT of the Joint Committee On Highways

To The Washington State Legislature hist Forty-Second Session 351.864 WASHING 1969-1971 January, 1971 ' Olympia, Wash.

'• ( '• ' ; ■ ' v'i WA STATE DOT LIBRARY

3 3166 0000 1336

of the Qiunmittee. 04t a4i(fJu4MS4f4^

TO THE

WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE FORTY-SECOND SESSION OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON January, 1971

AL HENRY, Chairman ALFRED E. LELAND, Vice Chairman C. W. BECK, Secretary

SENATE MEMBERS HOUSE MEMBERS

Hubert F. Donohue Otto Amen Sam C. Guess Eric O. Anderson A1 Henry C. W. Beck Elmer C. Huntley Horace Bozarth Brian J. Lewis Paul H. Conner John T, McCutcheon Norwood Cunningham Bob McDougall Vaughn Hubbard Richard G. Mjurquardt James P. Kuehnle Lowell Peterson William S. Leckenby Gordon L. Walgren Alfred E. Leland Nat W. Washington Robert A. Perry F. Pat Wanamaker

STAFF Catherine Mayo, Administrative Secretary- John A. Richardson, Chief Research Analyst John W. Bowen, Budget Director Rod Rolfson, Research Analyst Terry Corrigan, Research Analyst James N. Fricke, Research Analyst William A. Gebenini, Research Analyst Delbert A. Johnson, Counsel Jerry Whalen, Counsel Charlene Zeigler, Subcommittee Secretary Judy Bums, Secretary Gretchen Hooper, Secretary Letter of Transmittal

Oljonpia, Washington January 11, 1971

To His Excellency, the Governor, and to the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Washington:

The report of the Joint Committee on Highways is herewith transmitted, containing the conclusions and recommendations of the committee on subjects assigned to it for study, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 281, Laws of 1969, 1st. Ex. Sess.

In addition, the publications listed on page 59 contain pertinent data and findings on which the committee recommendations are based.

Respectfully submitted,

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS

A1 Henry, Chairman Alfred E. Leland, Vice Chairman C. W.Beck, Secretary Otto Amen Eric O. Anderson Horace Bozarth Paul H. Conner Norwood Cunningham Hubert F. Donohue Sam C. Guess Vaughn Hubbard Elmer C. Huntley James P. Kuehnle William S. Leckenby Brian J. Lewis John T. McCutcheon Bob McDougall Richard G. Marquardt Robert A. Perry Lowell Peterson Gordon L. Walgren F. Pat Wanamaker Nat W. Washington TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SUBCOMMITTEES 7 2. ACKNOWLEDGIVIENTS 8 3. EEPORTS AND PUBLICATIONS 9 4. AUTHORIZATION 9 5. PRIORITY SAFETY LEGISLATION 14 Emergency Medical Services (Ambulance) Act. Habitual Offender's Act. Extension of Justice Court Act to All Coxmties. Mandatory Juvenile Traffic Violation Reports Act. Improvement of Allocation of Hazardous Location Funds to Cities and Counties. Restoring Penalty Assessments on Traffic Fines to Traffic Safety Education Account. Snowmobile Registration and Regulation Act. 6. HIGHWAY ROUTE STUDIES 18 Subcommittee on Extensions, Sen. Lowell Peterson, Chairman. Kenmore to Swamp Creek. Pacific Highway Determination. South Snohomish-North King County Study. Point Ellice to Skamokawa. Broadway Interchange to Snohomish. Columbia Park Pedestrian Crossing—^Kennewick. Pedestrian Crossing—1-5, Roanoke Street, Seattle. Pedestrian Crossing—1-5 and Fourth Street, Blaine. Widening of Guide—Meridian Road, Bellingham. 1-90 Exit at George. Hoquiam to Ocean City. 7. REPORTS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES 23 Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rep. Horace Bozarth, Chairman. Subcommittee on Appropriations, Rep. A1 Leland, Chairman. Subcommittee on Federal Programs, Sen. Bob McDougall, Chairman. Subcommittee on Finance and Industrial Development, Sen. Nat Washington, Chairman. Subcommittee on Highways Administration, Sen. Sam Guess, Chairman. Subcommittee on Motor Vehicle Standards, Sen. Hubert Donohue, Chairman. Subcommittee on Safety, Sen. A1 Henry, Chairman. Subcommittee on State Patrol Administration, Rep. C. W. Beck, Chairman. Subcommittee on Planning, Sen. Elmer Huntley, Chairman Subcommittee on Urban Transportation, Sen. Richard Marquardt, Chairman. Subcommittee on Puget Sound Transportation and Toll Financing Sen. Gordon Walgren, Chairman. Subcommittee on Motor Vehicle Administration, Sen. Brian Lewis, Chairman. 8. RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS DURING THE 1969-1971 BIENNIUM 48 9. LIST OF PUBLICATIONS PREPARED FOR THE COMMITTEE SINCE FORMED IN 1947 61 1. Subcommittees of the Joint Committee on Highways (1969-1971)

AGRICULTURE HIGHWAYS ADMINISTRATION BOZARTH, Chairman GUESS, Chairman Amen Amen Donohue Conner Hubbard Donohue Huntley Hubbard Wanamaker Huntley Leckenby APPROPRIATIONS Leland LELAND, Chairman Lewis Amen McCutcheon Bozarth Perry Donohue Peterson Guess Huntley MOTOR VEHICLE Leckenby ADMINISTRATION Walgren LEWIS, Chairman Washington Beck Conner EXTENSIONS Cunningham PETERSON, Chairman Guess Amen Marquardt Anderson McCutcheon Beck Bozarth MOTOR VEHICLE Donohue STANDARDS Lewis DONOHUE, Chairman Walgren Beck Wanamaker Conner Cunningham FEDERAL PROGRAM Marquardt McDOUGALL, Chairman McDougall Anderson Peterson Berentson Leckenby SAFETY McCutcheon STANDARDS HENRY, Chairman FINANCE AND INDUSTRIAL Amen DEVELOPMENT Anderson WASHINGTON, Chairman Berentson Anderson Bozarth Beck Conner Berentson Cunningham Conner McCutcheon Cunningham McDougall Donohue Walgren Leckenby Leland Perry Peterson

[7] STATE PATROL URBAN TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION MARQUARDT, Chairman BECK, Chairman Anderson Amen Berentson Anderson Cunningham Hubbard Leckenby Huntley Leland McCutcheon Lewis McDougaU Perry Wanamaker Walgren Washington PLANNING HUNTLEY, Chairman PUGET SOUND TRANSPORTATION Amen AND TOLL FINANCING Anderson WALGREN, Chairman Beck Beck Bozarth Hubbard Guess Huntley Hubbard Lewis Lewis Perry Marquardt Peterson Wanamaker Wanamaker Washington

2. Acknowledgements The committee members hereby express their appreciation to the many persons and agencies whose special capabilities and efforts have made possi ble the collection of factual material and the development of the recom mendations presented in this report. Especially, we wish to extend our thanks to those members of the Washington Citizens' Committee on Highway Safety, listed below, who have unstintingly given of their time and effort to formulate recommendations for legislation in the highway safety and related fields.

CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAY SAFETY

Ellis Lind, Chairman David C. Guilbert Rajnnond A. Norwood, Dr. Herbert Hartley Vice Chairman Robert Hedges Ray Anderson William E. Hicks Mrs. Irene Bergsagel Donald Hinchliffe Don Broughton Mrs. Phyllis Kirk Marv J. Christman Dave Kreiner Connie Cody Art Lambo Lee Cox William Looney Dennis Crumbley Robert E. McCormick Dr. Hans Doerr R. W. McDonald Hon. Dewey Donohue Jack B. Moorhouse Donald Downen Mrs. Carl Nelson James Elam Jim Pizzuto Bob Gardner Mrs. Margaret Potteiger Judge A. C. Grady Donald Pugnetti

[8] Hon. W. C. Raugust Ward Smith Ken E. Rudert Miss Jean Veldwyk Martin Sangster Kenneth L. Von Arb Richard L. Schwary Jim Wellman Dave Showaiter Wilfred Woods Hon. Lincoln Shropshire Herbert Yates Mrs. Mary Smith

3. Reports and Publications The following reports and publications have been produced in connection with the work of this Committee during the 1969-71 biennium:

REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS,January, 1969. INDUSTRIAL DISPERSION AND DIVERSIFICATION FOR WASHINGTON STATE, Staff (Weaver and Rolfson), Joint Committee on Highways. AUBURN-BOTHELL CORRIDOR STUDY, Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Men- denhall, December, 1969, Phase I, Study Design, Phase II, Inception Report, First Interim Report, Second Interim Report, Final Report. BETTER HIGHWAYS FOR WASHINGTON, AUinson, Inc. and Price Water- house and Company, Classification Needs and Finance for Comity Roads and City Streets (41 Volumes), February, 1970. PROPOSED LEGISLATION BASED ON CLASSIFICATION AND NEEDS STUDY, Staff, (Corrigan and Whelan), November, 1970. SOUTHWEST KING COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY, Frederick R. Harris, Inc.—Quinton-Budlong, Inc., October, 1970. LONG-RANGE NEEDS AND FINANCING OF THE WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, Staff, (Fricke), December, 1970. EVALUATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT TELETYPEWRITER TERMIN ALS AS PROPOSED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE PATROL AND PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, WAG & Asso ciates, Wm. A. Gebenini, P.E., September, 1970. A BUDGET EXECUTION REVIEW SYSTEM FOR THE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, Staff, (Bowen), July, 1970. RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY REPORTS BY THE WASHINGTON STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION: Kenmore to Swamp Creek. Point EUice to Skamokawa. Broadway Interchange to Snohomish. Columbia Park Pedestrian Crossing—^Kennewick. Pedestrian Crossing—1-5, Roanoke Street, Seattle. Pedestrian Crossing—^1-5 and Fourth Street, Blaine. Widening of Guide—Meridian Road, Bellingham. 1-90 Exit at George. Hoquiam to Ocean City.

4. Authorization Chapter 281, Laws of 1969,1st. Ex. Sess. NEW SECTION. Section 1. The joint committee on highways and the Washington state highway commission, shall jointly consider the following

[9] proposed highway additions by undertaking appropriate studies and surveys as may be necessary to accomplish an evaluation with respect to their being a part of the modem integrated state highway system. Unless otherwise provided, the study shall be completed by September 1, 1970. (1) A new highway connection from primary state highway No. 2 (SR 522) in the vicinity of Kenmore in a generally northerly direction to a junction with primary state highway No. 1 (SR 5) in the vicinity of Swamp Creek, or to a junction with primary state highway No. 1 (SR 405) in the vicinity of Swamp Creek. Consideration shall be given to the further exten sion of said highway to proposed primary state highway No. 19 (SR 605). The study shall consider whether such a connecting highway should be designated a state highway or county road. (2) An extension to primary state highway No. 12 from the interstate bridge at Point EUice easterly along the Columbia River via Altoona to a junction with primary state highway No. 12 at Skamokawa. (3) The acquisition by the Washington state highway commission or Washington toll bridge authority of all the properties and facilities on the Puget Island-Westport ferry system now owned by Wahkiakum county for the purposes of adding such ferry crossing from the south side of Puget Island to a point in the vicinity of Westport, Oregon as an extension of secondary state highway No. 12F (SR 525). (4) An extension of secondary state highway No. II (SR 525) from the Broadway interchange on FAI 5, easterly to a connection with secondary state highway No. lA, thence northerly on secondary state highway No. lA to primary state highway No. 2 in Snohomish. NEW SECTION. Sec, 15. The joint committee on highways and the Washington state highway commission. King county, Snohomish coimty, the city of Everett, and the Puget Sound governmental conference are authorized and directed to conduct jointly all studies and surveys, including traffic studies necessary to determine state transportation facilities required in southern Snohomish county and the area immediately adjacent thereto in northern King coimty to meet existing and projected traffic through 1990. The commission shall utilize all prior surveys and reports heretofore made concerning highway and transportation needs within the study area. The study shall include an evaluation of the present and projected traffic in the vicinity of the Edmonds Community College. This phase of the study shall consider the road and highway improvements required to assure a free flow of traffic within the area. The study participants and any consultants engaged by them pursuant to this section shaU present all studies and surveys to the local governments affected for advisory review at appropriate stages of completion of such studies and surveys. Upon completion of such studies the study participants shall report their flndings and recommendations to the joint committee on highways. The joint committee on highways and the Washington state highway commission together shall not incur more than one-third of the cost of the study authorized in this section. NEW SECTION. Sec. 16. The Washington state highway commission is hereby authorized and directed to make or cause to be made studies of the feasibility of and justification for the following proposed highway improve- ments:

[10] (1) The construction of a foot and bicycle crossing of primary state highway No. 3 from Canal Drive in the city of Kennewick to the eastern portion of Columbia Park and construction of a foot and bicycle crossing of primary state highway No. 3 from the most feasible location in the city of Kennewick to the western portion of Columbia Park in the vicinity of Camp Kiwanis. (2) Construction of a pedestrian crossing separation structure in the city of Seattle in the vicinity of FAX 5 and Roanoke street. The commission shall utilize all prior surveys and studies relating to such a facility prepared by the city of Seattle. (3) The construction of a pedestrian crossing across FAX 5 in the vicinity of 4th street within the city of Elaine. (4) The widening of Guide Meridian road (U.S. 99 Alternate to a four lane highway from FAX 5 at Bellingham city limits to the junction at Pole road (SR 544). (5) The construction of an exit from the east boimd lanes of FAX 90 at the Beverly Burke road in the vicinity of George. (6) The improvement of secondary state highway No. 9C (SR 109) from Hoquiam to the ocean beaches in the vicinity of Ocean City, taking into accoimt the marked increase in recreational travel over said highway. NEW SECTION. Sec. 17. There is appropriated to the Washington state highway commission from the motor vehicle fund for the biennium ending Jime 30, 1971, the sum of ten thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary for the conduct of studies and surveys, including a traflBc study, of the feasibility of the construction of a toll bridge across the Columbia River in the vicinity of the northern part of Richland so as to permit a highway connection between the Hanford highway (SR 240) and FAX 82 near Pasco. Expenditures made pursuant to this appropriation shall be considered as a loan from the motor vehicle fvmd to be repaid to said fimd from the proceeds from the subsequent sale of any bonds issued to finance the bridge project. To the extent feasible, the results of previous studies shall be considered in preparing this feasibility study. NEW SECTION. Sec. 36. There is appropriated from the motor vehicle fimd to the joint committee on highways for the biennium ending July 1, 1971 the Slim of one thousand dollars for research in the field of motor vehicle law to be performed by the national committee on uniform traffic laws and ordinances. Disbursement of this appropriation shall be pursuant to resolution of the joint committee on highways. NEW SECTION. Sec. 37. The joint committee on highways is authorized to consider the following studies and such others as it deems appropriate and report its findings and recommendations in connection therewith to the 1971 legislature prior to its convening: (1) A continuation of the 1967-1969 state highway transportation study which shall include state-wide hearings relative to classification, needs and financing of state highways, county roads and city streets. This study and the hearings held in connection therewith shall be designed to inform the public of the findings of the 1967-1969 study and develop specific recommendations for legislative implementation of ssdd study findings as the committee deems advisable. The conunittee shall further provide for establishing procedures for maintaining the information developed by the 1967-1969 study percep tually up to date with respect to state, county and city levels of government.

[11] (2) A continuation of the 1967-1969 highway, road and street laws study with emphasis on implementing the recommendations of said study. (3) A comprehensive review of long range transportation plans for the Seattle metropolitan area adopted by the city of Seattle, the municipality of metropoUtan Seattle, King county, the Puget Sound governmental conference and the Washington state highway commission. The committee shall retain a t«aaTn of nationally recognized transportation consultants to evaluate existing long range transportation plans for the area, and in particular the proper role and responsibility of various modes of transportation to provide a balanced transportation system capable of meeting long range traffic cariying requirements. The consultants shall further be charged with the responsibil ity of recommending criteria or models to be used in assigning to the various modes of transportation responsibility for meeting present and long range traffic carrying requirements. (4) A review of the policy of the state highway commission for the establishment of rest areas along state highways. (5) A comprehensive study of the department of highways budgeting procedures, including an examination of the feasibility of utilizing perform ance standards. The committee shall review the department's "chart of accoimts" program to determine the adequacy of the system to reflect actual work activities and the interrelationship of planning, operations and work measurement phases of the budgeting process. (6) A review of existing highway hearing procedures in relation to the federal highway hearing requirements. (7) A study of state policy relating to the installation, operation mainte nance and control of traffic control devices regulating traffic on, entering upon, or leaving state highways within cities of all classes. (8) A continuing review of the urban arterial law to evaluate the effectiveness of the program in relieving urban traffic congestion. (9) A continuing study of the effect of industrial decentralization upon future requirements for highway construction, and of the factors influencing the location of industry in non-metropolitan areas. (10) A comprehensive review of existing uniform county road and city street accounting procedures. The committee shall determine the types of records, data and procedures for counties and cities to carry out the legisla tive intent of existing statutes prescribing uniform accounting procedures for counties and cities, and make appropriate recommendations with respect thereto to the 1971 legislature. (11) A study to improve the legal procedures for the disposition of abandoned vehicles. (12) A study to develop reasonable and effective regulations prescribing standards for the control of air contaminant emmissions from motor vehicles. The study shall take into account standards now or hereafter prescribed pursuant to the federal clean air act. (13) A study to determine appropriate minimum standards for vehicles operating upon the public highways with respect to power, speed and size. The committee shall consider hazards created by (a) slow moving vehicles including trailers and campers operating upon high speed highways and (b) undersized vehicles not readily visible to the drivers of conventional vehicles. (14) A study of federal traffic safety standards including the development of legislation necessary to comply with federal requirements.

[12] (15) The feasibility of reestablishing a program of vehicle safety inspec tion. The committee shall review present research in this field and shall consider both compulsory periodic plans for inspection and spot check inspections. (16) The establishment of legislative policy regarding the overloading of school buses. The committee shall consider both the safety of school children and financisd capabilities of school districts in developing its recommenda tions. (17) A study to determine if the present statutes taxing fuels used in motor vehicles other than gasoline, should be revised and, if so, in what manner to achieve an effective, equitable and adequate system of taxation. (18) A study to determine whether for hire vehicles (taxis) should be granted a partial fuel tax refund. (19) A study to evaluate the equity of highway user fees. (20) A study to develop a legislative policy governing the release of driver record and vehicle record information in the custody of the depart ment of motor vehicles to governmental agencies, insurance and directory firms and the general public. (21) A study by a management consultant regarding the administrative organization including proper staff positions for the joint committee on highways. The study shall include procedures for developing proposed legis lation to implement the committee's recommendations prior to the com mencement of each regular legislative session. (22) A study of the financing of the Washington state patrol. The committee shall consider the long range financing needs of the state patrol and the appropriate means of meeting such needs taking into account both highway and nonhighway functions performed by the state patrol. The study shall be made in cooperation with the Washington state patrol and the budget director. (23) A comprehensive study of state laws relating to acquisition of right-of-way for state highways, including a consideration of constitutional revision authorizing immediate possession and right of entry, the operation of the relocation assistance act of 1969 and the advance purchase of right-of- way act of 1969, particularly as it relates to advance purchase in hardship cases. (24) Study including an evaluation of the acquisition policies and prac tices of the right-of-way division of the department of highways. (25) A study of the feasibility of the exchange between states of audit information relating to the proper payment of fuel taxes and other motor vehicle taxes by interstate motor carriers for the purpose of reducing dupli cate audits by the several states. (26) A study of the department of motor vehicles new data processing program, including the pilot project and the financial effect on the coimties. NEW SECTION. Sec. 57. There is added to chapter 13, Laws of 1961 and to chapter 47.16 RCW a new section to read as foUows: The joint committee on highways with the cooperation and assistance of the state highway commission is authorized and directed to conduct public hearings and such informal local community meetings as it deems advisable within the areas that may be affected by establishment of a highway described as follows: Beginning at a junction of state highway No. 18 with primary state highway No. 1, thence northerly east of Auburn, thence easterly to the vicinity of Auburn, thence generally northerly east of Renton,

[13] thence continuing via a corridor located easterly of Lake Sammamish to a connection with primary state highway No. 15 northeast of Bothell, it being the intent of the Legislature that said corridor highway, if established, shall be east of Lake Sammamish. Such hearings and meetings shall be conducted in a manner to inform the public about alternate proposals for the location of said highway and to obtain information from the public which might affect the scope of the study or the choice of alternatives to be considered and which might aid in identification of critical social, economic and environmen tal effects prior to corridor hearings to be held by the highway commission. The joint committee on highways and the state highway commission shall TTiflintflin fuU liaison with King county and all cities and towns affected by the location of this highway to insure that each alternate proposed location will be properly coordinated with the adopted transportation plans of such local governments. The joint committee on highways in connection with the preparation and conduct of such hearings may retain a design team of experts from several disciplines concerned with aesthetic and social aspects in the location and design of the proposed highway. The joint committee on highways shall report its findings relative to the establishment and general location of said highway to the legislature at the time of its convening in 1971. There is hereby appropriated from the motor vehicle fund to the joint committee on highways and the Washington state highway commission for the biennium ending June 30, 1971, the sum of two himdred thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.

5. Priority Safety Legislation Hecommendations of the Citizens' Committee on Highway Safety were developed after many hours of study and discussion, and a series of public meetings throughout the state. Suggested legislation was approved by the Subcommittee on Safety and by the full Joint Committee on Highways for sponsorship during the Forty-Second Session of the Legislature, as follows: 1. Enactment of an Emergency Medical Services (Ambulance) Bill to provide adequate ambulance services in all areas of the state, and reasonable standards as to equipment and trEiining of ambulance drivers and driver-attendants. 2. Enactment of a Habitual Traffic Offender's Bill to deal with the problem of the unlicensed driver on our highways and the repeat violators. 3. Extension of the Justice Court Act to apply to all counties, 4. Enactment of a Mandatory Juvenile Violation Reports Bill, so that drivers in the 16-18 age group are handled in the same manner as adult drivers. 5. An Amendment to the Omnibus Highways Bill to study and improve allocation of hazardous location funds to counties and cities. 6. Repeal of 1969 act which placed penalty assessments on traffic violation fines and forfeitures in justice court distribution formula, costing more than $2 million in receipts to traffic education safety accoimt. 7. Snowmobile Regulations and Regulation Act. Additional details on these recommendations are included in the report of the Subcommittee on Safety.

[14] REPORT BY ELLIS LIND, CHAIRIVIAN OF THE WASHINGTON STATE CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAY SAFETY TO THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS, WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLA TURE, SENATOR AL HENRY, CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Joint Committee on Highways, for not only the confidence you have shown in me, but the confidence you have shown in the dedicated group of citizens that make up the Citizens' Committee on Highway Safety. I can't be too complimentary of a more marvelous group of men and women than this fine group. They worked hard and long, traveled to almost every city of any size in the state (at their own expense) and really explored the many facets and problems concerning the safety of our citizens on our streets and highways. We started last December and met monthly through September to adopt this priority program. We realize that there are many, many more traffic safety suggestions and ideas that should be studied and perhaps enacted into law at some future date, but for this time and date these are the priority recommendations most important, we believe. We would also like to thank the various Senators and Representatives who took the time to attend our meetings. These are the measures we feel need top priority. Later I have some additional concerns that the committee would like me to convey to you which are not necessarily legislative, but which bear heavily on traffic safety and should be considered by this committee and everyone else interested in accident prevention on our highways. Also, I would like to congratulate the Joint Committee staff. They have worked long and hard and have been very close to this Citizens' Committee, and we owe them a debt of gratitude for their consistent and efficient work. I would also like to thank the many state agencies who assisted us as resource people—^they were most cooperative. The bills as we envision them have already been completed by the staff, and we are pleased to offer them to the Joint Committee for your consideration, as follows:

I. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES BILL (Ambulance) It has been said that in many parts of Washington, the emergency medical service is so slow and poor, you have a better chance of surviving in Vietnam than if you're hurt on the highway. The committee has recom mended a bill providing imiform ambulance service throughout the state, in conformance with the National Highway Safety Act of 1966. It also provides a means to regulate and license ambulances, seeing that they meet standards as to equipment, and specifies training standards for attendants and attend ant-drivers. The Department of Social and Health Services would aHministAr the act. We believe this bill deserves top priority at this Session of the Legislature.

II. HABITUAL OFFENDERS BILL This bill was patterned after a 1968 Virginia law that was developed to deal with the problems of the unlicensed driver on our highways and the repeat violators. It defines habitual traffic offenders and establishes severe penalties for such offenders. Permanent loss of license is required for a series of convictions for traffic offenses of a serious natmre, such as manslaughter, drunken driving, leaving the scene of an accident. A license could be revoked also because of a large total of moving violations. People who continue to

[15] drive following license revocation are a major problem; the committee feels that jail sentences and stiff fines may be the only weapons to deal with this group of people.

III. EXTENSION OF JUSTICE COURT ACT This was introduced in previous Sessions and extends the Justice Court Act to all coimties. More and more coimties volimtarily decide to come under the Act, year after year; but this bill would make a clean break for all coimties away from the fee-justice system, which we think is an unfortunate way to conduct traffic cases.

IV. MANDATORY JUVENILE MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATION REPORTS BELL At the present time, juvenile cases (16 to 18) are handled for traffic offenses, in juvenile coiurts, and in most cases the records are not sent on to Olympia to the Department of Motor Vehicles. This bill would make it mandatory that all juvenile traffic records be forwarded to the DMV, and handled as adult violators. The committee feels that since one of our biggest areas of concern on the highways are the yoimg traffic violators, we must treat them as adults, since they are committing adult violations and driving adult automobiles and causing adults to be killed, injured and their property to be damaged. V. TRAFFIC SAFETY EDUCATION FUND RESTORATION Another area which this committee and the Joint Conunittee worked on for many years is traffic safety education or driver education as it was formerly called. In your wisdom. Chapter 218, Laws of 1969, was passed which, in part, raised the fee on fines, fees and forfeitures due to moving traffic violations from $3 to $5 in order to take care of the additional students now taking driver education. However, in the meantime. Chapter 199, Laws of 1969 (Distribution of Monies collected by the Justice Courts) and Chapter 199, Laws of 1970, amended not only the Driver Education Law, but all laws which received revenues from fees, fines and forfeitures collected by county justice courts on penalties assessed because of violation of city and/or county ordinances and as a result of civil action. A new distribution formula was established in Bulletin No. 96 dated September 26, 1969, from the State Auditor's Office. This has the effect at the present time of skimming off a sizeable sum from the traffic safety education monies—now estimated at $1,047,022 for 1969-70. This money is first allocated to the administration of the courts before other state funds, including traffic safety education, would receive their allotments. The end result has made this fund about 25 percent short of the funds which most of us thought we would have for traffic safety education. All schools in the state have been notified that due to this unfortunate change . . . the fee paid by the state for each student taking traffic safety education will be $40 instead of $49. So we recommend that the Joint Committee attempt to restore the traffic safety education portion of the fees, fines and forfeitures to its original status as a dedicated fund and that this recommendation be made No. 5 in our list of priorities.

VI. SPOT CHECK AMENDMENT The State Patrol now is empowered to conduct "spot checks" for opera- ■tor's licenses and equipment inspection only in daylight hours. We believe

[16] this is rather foolish since most of the severe accidents occur at night and most of the repeat violators are out at night. The daylight provision is struck from the act by this amendment.

Vn. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY RULES OF THE ROAD AMENDMENTS The committee has gone into the problem of pedestrian safety for the first time. The amendments in this bill simply clarify and add more detail to the pedestrian safety rules of the road. We recommend that the changes in this bill which are not in conformity with the Uniform Code be referred to Senator Nat Washington as a member of the National Committee on Uniform Laws and Ordinances, for submission to that committee as improvements in the Uniform Code.

VIII. SNOWMOBILE REGISTRATION BILL This would require the registration of snowmobiles. This follows legisla tion introduced in the 1970 Session by Senator Sam Guess, specifying rules for registering snowmobiles and providing for their control by state agencies, such as the Department of Game, Department of Natural Resoturces and the Parks & Recreation Commission, which administer state lands. This is not specifically a highway safety problem . . . in fact, one of the purposes of the bill is to keep snowmobiles oflE the state highways, aside from being able to cross them at a 90-degree angle to the road. There will continue to be more complicating factors as various kinds of off-highway all-terrain vehicles proliferate.

Demolition of Hulk Vehicles: It was recommended by the Committee that the Joint Committee on Highways make a more in-depth study of the problem of demolition of hulk vehicles. Another recommendation was that a study be made by the Traffic Safety Commission of the problem of getting cities and coimties to utilize present programs on hazardous highway locations. There are several state and federal highway safety programs relating to this subject, and cities and counties in some cases are not aware that these funds are available, or do not have the engineering talent to meet the application requirements. Obviously, some local governments may not have sufficient matching funds, where they are required, but this is an aspect also that should be studied. The Traffic Safety Commission is directed to report its findings to the Joint Committee on Highways by October, 1972. The committee also supports an amendment to the Implied Consent Law requiring that medical examiners or coimty coroners submit blood samples from traffic fatalities to the State Toxicologist. This is expected to be sponsored by the Department of Social and Health Services. Additionally, the Citizens' Committee has been very concerned about the attempt by some legislators to change the purpose of the Implied Consent Law voted by the people of the state several years ago to rid the highways of the drunken drivers. The Legislative Coimcil now has recommended a biQ to set up an occupational driver's license for those people who refuse to take the test. While several reasons have been given as to the justification for this bill, we believe that the final result will be for the intent of the voters to be frustrated and the original bill emasculated. This occupational driver's license was presented to the last session of the legislature and did not pass. We urge the members of the Joint Committee to oppose this measure vigorously. The Subcommittee on Alcohol as it Relates

[17] to Highway Safety has also been concerned about the lack of reasonably uniform application of the mandatory provisions of the traffic laws and especially the Implied Consent Law. Therefore, I have conferred with the chairman of the Joint Committee, Senator A1 Henry, and we propose to set up a meeting in the very near future with the Magistrates' Association so that they may know our views. Those are the 1970 recommendations.

6. Highway Route Studies

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EXTENSIONS Senator Lowell Peterson, Chairman Chapter 281, Laws of 1969, Extraordinary Session, the Highways Omnibus Bill, directed the Joint Committee on Highways and the State Highway Commission to undertake appropriate studies on a series of additions to the state highway system. These projects were referred to the Subcommittee on Extensions for detailed analysis. In appropriate instances, the subcommittee visited the locations of the proposals, conducted public hearings in the area, considered the reconnaissance studies prepared by the Department of Highways, and formulated its recommendations. In addition, the subcommittee, at the request of individual members of the Legislature, conducted a number of hearings on specific highway prob lems locally, which arose in the districts of the legislators concerned. These are our findings: Kemnore to Swamp Creek This study concerned whether a connecting roadway between SR 522, in the vicinity of Kenmore, to a jimcHon with SR 5 or with SR 405, both in the vicinity of Swamp Creek, should be designated a state highway or a county road. Changing conditions since the mandate was adopted by the Legislatiure cast doubt on the necessity of this connection at all. With the R. H. Thompson project being dropped by the City of Seattle, the connection would have no southern terminus. It is recommended that consideration of this project be suspended, pending the outcome of the major South Snohomish- North King County transportation study. Pacific BQgrhway Determination In this mandate the Joint Committee on Highways and the Highway Commission were directed to evaluate portions of the Pacific Highway (PSH 1) to determine if they should remain on the state system. Portions of the route to be analysed included that part of SR 528 formerly PSH No, 1 between the northerly city limits of Everett and the southerly city limits of Marysville; between the Broadway junction with Interstate 5 in Everett south to Midway, and from Midway south to Tacoma. The first two segments presently are on the state system, with the question involving the Midway to Tacoma section being whether or not it should be reinstated as part of the state system. On the basis of studies completed by the Department of Highways, the subcommittee recommends that these segments should permanently be re tained on the state highway system.

[18] South Snohomish-North Kin? County Study The Joint Committee on Highways and the State Highway Commission, along with Snohomish County, King County, the City of Everett and the Puget Sound Governmental Conference were directed to conduct studies and surveys to determine state transportation facilities in southern Snohomish County and the adjacent area of northern King County. The study included an evaluation of the present and projected traflBc in the vicinity of Edmonds Community College. The subcommittee recognizes the complexity of this assignment and recom mends that the study completion date be extended to 1972, so that appropri ate findings may be made to the forty-third session of the Legislature.

Point Ellice to Skamokawa This route involves construction of an extension to PSH 12, from the Interstate Bridge at Point Ellice easterly along the Columbia River via Altoona, to a jimction with PSH 12 at Skamokawa. As studied, the extension was essentially a water level route, with considerable causeway tj^ie construction along the north bank of the river. The distance of 23.9 miles of the study route includes a 2.8 mile crossing of Grays Bay. The department concluded that the estimated cost of $21,075,000 was excessive for the relatively light traffic anticipated. As an alternative, reconstruction of the existing highway inland as a two-lane facility with the same design standards could be accomplished at an estimated cost of $13,000,000. This reconstruction could be done in stages in accordance with priority programming procedures and the availability of funds. The department also expressed doubts that the use of this length of Columbia River frontage for highway purposes "would be in the best public interest."

Broadway Interchange to Snohomish This assignment was to evaluate the desirability and feasibility of con struction of an extension of SR 526, from the Broadway Interchange on SR 5 easterly to a connection with SR 9 and SR 2 in the City of Snohomish. Although this facility presents no imusual construction problems, the estimate of cost, $5,000,000, is quite high due to large grading quantities and the total length of structures required to descend from Interstate 5 in the upland area to the valley floor, and to cross extensive drainage facilities. A traffic analysis revealed a 1990 projection of 6,200 average annual trips per day. However, the department reported that only 2,300 of these would be through trips having origin and destination points in the vicinity of Snoho mish and Paine Field. The department noted that alternate routes such as SR 2 to the north and a major county arterial to the south connecting SR 526 and SR 9 via Airport Road, Post Road and 132nd Street, S.E., are plaimed for considerable devel opment in the near future. SR 2 has $18,500,000 programmed in the six-year period for reconstruction to a four lane facility from Cavalero's Comer to Monroe. In the county six-year program, construction is planned for four lanes from SR 99 to Post Road interchange on Interstate 5, and two lanes from there to SR 9 in the vicinity of Ree's Comer. Based on these considerations, the department did not feel that the proposed five-mile long facility, at a cost of $5,000,000 was justified and that this facility should not be added to the state highway system.

[19] Columbia Park Pedestrian Crossing—^Kennewick Involved in this study was a proposal to construct two pedestrian grade separation structures over SR 12, in the vicinity of Kennewick to serve Columbia Park. The department noted that the planning of the McNary Dam Project on the Columbia River, which was constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, did not take into account a program for relocation of SR 12. Consequently, both Benton County and the Department of Highways have inherited liabilities from the Corps of Engineers v/hich have caused difficul ties in providing pedestrian access to Columbia Park. lUegal crossings of SR 12 by children en route to the park not only represent dangers to the pedestrians but to the motoring public. The depart ment reports that it will enter into immediate discussions with all other interested agencies in order to explore all possible means to finance a pedestrian grade separation at the east end of the park. Pedestrian Crossing—^1-5, Roanoke Street, Seattle Local service groups have expressed concern to city officials about the safety of children on their way to and from school in the vicinity of Interstate 5 and Roanoke Street in Seattle. The study by the Department of Highways indicated that the city has made a number of traffic control revisions in this area, which are in effect at this time. The department reports that structures in this area presently rank between 32 and 71 on a priority listing of 100 potential crossing sites throughout the City of Seattle. In addition, it was found that present arterial traffic in this area is less than that prior to freeway construction. Existing traffic signals can adequately handle separate traffic and pedestrian phases to the design year of 1990. Under these circumstances, the department recom mends that the construction of a pedestrian grade separation in this area be deferred until there are sufficient warrants to justify the expenditures of public funds. Pedestrian Crossing—^1-5 and Fourth Street, Blaine This study investigated the feasibility and justification for a pedestrian crossing across Interstate 5, in the vicinity of Fourth Street in Blaine. While, the department could not recommend the construction of such a pedestrian crossing, it has proceeded with the construction of the Blaine Truck Route (SR 543), by advancing funds from the 1971-73 biennium. This should alleviate some of the community's concerns about the heavy truck traffic on D Street, which contributed to the problems encountered by pedestrians in the area. Widening of Guide Meridian Road, Bellingham The study considered the desirability of widening Guide Meridian Road from Interstate 5 to a junction at Pole Road (SR 544). A review of accident records for the three year period from January, 1967, through December, 1969, revealed an accident rate comparable to the statewide average for rural two lane highways. However, the fatality rate was nearly three times the statewide average, the result of four fatal accidents involving ten deaths. Analysis indicated all four accidents involving the fatalities were attributed to excessive speed and/or driver inattention.

[20 ] They occurred at four separate locations of straight and level roadway within a four mile portion of the study section. The department concluded that the number of fatalities involved in two of the accidents; five in one and three in another, tends to distort the fatality rate for this section of highway. The department recommended that the roadway not be expanded to four lanes at this time, but that a traflflc study would be remade, using cvwrent figures. If traffic continues to increase at projected rates, the segment would be competitive in priority with similar facilities in the collector classification.

1-90 Exit at George This study involves a proposed off-ramp for the eastbound lanes of Interstate 90 at George. Although the legislative mandate referred only to an off-ramp, the study encompassed a complementary on-ramp in accordance with sound engineering principles. The department concluded that the proposed ramps would be an undesir able addition to the state highway system, noting that a half-diamond interchange, particularly in areas of light traffic, would be conducive to wrong way traffic movements. The proposed ramps would also reduce inter change spacing to an undesirable minimum. The department said retail sales figures for the Town of George indicate no ill effects from the present access.

Hoquiam to Ocean City The legislative mandate on this study directed an investigation into the improvement of SR 109 from the City of Hoquiam to the ocean beaches in the vicinity of Ocean City. The study was to take into account the marked increase in recreational travel over this route. Two alternate routes were considered. The first involved reconstructing the existing highway to a four lane facility. The second alternative was a new route developed as a causeway across the North Bay of Grays Harbor, between Grass Creek and Oyehut. Both a dredged fill and a structxiral type causeway were considered and evaluated on the basis of cost and the impact on the invironment. Although a material saving in motor vehicle operating costs did accrue to the road user on the causeway route alternatives, their extremely high construction costs, $26,504,000 for a dredged causeway and $120,936,000 for a structure causeway, ruled.against this approach. The causeway route and a dredged fill alternative, in particular, would have a serious impact upon the ecology of that area of the North Bay north of the causeway, due to silting and possible changes in the salinity of the water. The department recommended that the existing highway be reconstructed in stages, in accordance with established priority programming procedures and the availability of funds. This cost is estimated at $15,516,000.

Other Investigations The subcommittee participated in the study of a Columbia River toll bridge north of Richland, which is included in the report of the Subcommit tee on Puget Sound Transportation and Toll Facilities. At the request of Chairman Henry, a hearing was conducted at Ridgefield on August 13, 1970. This involved the improvement of SR 501 from Interstate 5 to Ridgefield, a subject of particular concern to the members of the community and especially the Ridgefield Junior Women's Club.

[21] The members of the subcommittee traveled the route in question, noting areas where alignment could be improved and obstructions, particularly roadside brush, could be removed. Since the hearing, a considerable amount of brush clearing has been accomplished, vision has been improved and repaving and shoulder widening completed. The subcommittee was pleased to assist the local community in bringing these improvements about, and woiald hope that the department will continue to justify additional funds for this route in its 1971-73 budget requests. At the request of Representative Hugh Kalich of the 20th Legislative Dis trict, the subcommittee conducted a hearing at Elma on July 20, 1970, on the dangerous intersection there with the Aberdeen Highway and Third Street. This intersection has been the location of 21 accidents since June 21, 1965, four involving fatalities, in which three persons died. Testimony by Repre sentatives of the Department of Highways indicated that construction of an interchange to replace the at-grade crossing was projected for the 1973-75 biennium, at a cost of $600,000. The department owns enough right-of-way for the project. It is the recommendation that this priority be advanced to the 1971-73 biennium, in order that this dangerous intersection may be corrected. At the request of Chairman Henry, the subcommittee conducted a hearing on August 3, 1970, at Vancouver, on the SSH 1-T (SR 501) route, which is being coordinated with the Vancouver Lake Project sponsored by the Port of Vancouver. This route would serve the industrial area and recreational area to be developed by the extensive Vancouver Lake project. The members of the subcommittee toured the area and noted the present stage of construction, which represents about half of the route being com pleted. Schedules of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on construction of the flood control portion of the lake project were noted. Representatives of the Port of Veincouver indicated that savings of approximately $500,000 could be obtained by coordinating the highway construction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers diking project. Most of the eastern part of the planned dike will use SR 501 as its base. It is the recommendation of the subcommittee that this route be expedited for its industrial development benefits, and that funds be included in the 1971-73 biennium to take advantage of the projected $500,000 in savings, noted by the officials of the Port of Vancouver. At the request of Senator Gordon Walgren of the 23rd District, the subcommittee conducted a hearing at Silverdale, on November 12, 1969. Under consideration, was the selection of an access route in the vicinity of El Dorado Hills. Conflicting views were held by the Department of Highways and the Board of Kitsap County Commissioners on the route selection, following a series of public hearings on the route proposals. The hearing by the subcom mittee clarified the basis for the final route selection that was made by the Highway Commission, and enabled an expression of public views to be made on this subject.

[22] 7. Reports of the Subcommittees

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE Rep. Horace Bozarth, Chairman While the Subcommittee on Agriculture has no direct mandates from the Legislature this time, we, of course, still are extremely interested in the relationship between the highway program and agriculture, in all aspects. We continue to be increasingly concerned with the loss of prime farm lands, to highways, to airports and industrial development, among other things. The best lands always seem to be where the engineers want to construct the roads. These losses come in the face of the predictions of the food needs of the nation and the world. Certainly, the needs of people for food and fiber are of number one importance. A second subject of vital importance to the subcommittee is the maintain ing of the gas tax allocation to the covmties, where the rural roads princi pally serve agriculture. We have 39,200 miles of county roads in the state at this time, and more will be needed for farm-to-market purposes, especially in the newly develop ing irrigated areas of the state. If we build highways on the very best lands, we are subjecting oiu: citizens to a hidden tax, as poorer lands will have to be utilized to meet our needs for food and fiber. This leads me to a subject that we in the rural counties are extremely concerned about—^the effort to amend the State Constitution and remove the protection of the 18th Amendment against the diversion of gas tax fimds. The cold facts are that our statewide transportation study reveals that oin: road needs for the cities, the counties and the state by 1990 will be such that an additional four billion dollars will have to be spent to reach thig desired level of maintenance and construction. And that four billion comes without any change in our present gasoline tax structin-e. Now, you readily can see the effect if the 18th Amendment is repealed and gas tax monies are diverted first of all to costly rail mass transit. Once the 18th Amendment were repealed, you would have the school forces, the public assistance forces, the environmentalist groups—and who knows who else—all coming in for a share of the gas tax funds. The 18th Amendment is perfectly clear. The people adopted it by a margin of better than two and one-quarter to one, in 1944. Highway con struction, maintenance, safety and law enforcement all qualify as highway purposes under the amendment that protects diversion of these fimds. Lets not fall prey to the siren song of "rapid transit" and lose this fairest of all taxes—one that measures the use of the highways through fuel consumption. Washington continues to grow and highway transportation is an integral part of the agricultimal, recreational and economic life of the state. To force highway users, who pay proportionally for their use of the roads, to contribute to the general ftmd of the state, or for non-highway purposes based on their use of the highway is totally unfair.

[23] SUBCOMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS AND BUDGET Representative A1 Leland, Chairman The activities of the subcommittee during the interim have been directed primarily towards the development and utilization of an improved profes sional staff capability in the financial management area. The Joint Committee on Highways recognized, as part of an informal evaluation of staff positions, a pressing need to improve its staff capability in the areas of financial management and budgeting. After a nationwide recruit ment effort, six candidates were interviewed by a technical panel and a selection panel of legislators. The technical panel included, among others, the Legislative Auditor and Mr. W. Miller, OPP&FM. The panel of legislators included several members of the Joint Committee on Highways and Senator F. Foley, Legislative Budget Committee. The Committee appointed Mr. John W. Bowen as its first Budget Director on November 1, 1970. Mr. Bowen has had a great deal of experience in preparing and justifying military budget requests for committees of the Congress. He was a military Comptroller and is well versed in modern concepts of planning, programming and budgeting. Mr. Bowen received his Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree from Stanford University in 1960. In January, 1970, the subcommittee reviewed the Department of High ways' supplemental appropriations request of $2.27 million for essential highway maintenance activities for the 1969-71 Biennium. The members obtained a more concise and detailed understanding of the Department's request due to a comprehensive staff analysis. The request was approved in the Second Extraordinary Session, 41st Legislature (Chapter 91, Laws of 1970). The Highway Omnibus Bill (Chapter 281, Laws of 1969, First Extraordi nary Session) authorized the Joint Committee on Highways to study the Department of Highways budgeting procedures. Our subcommittee was as signed responsibility for the conduct of this study. The study objectives were: (1) to review and analyze all phases of current planning, programming and budgeting (PPB) policies and proce dures; (2) to determine the adequacy of current policies and procedures to reasonably reflect future needs for financial resources; and (3) to identify areas for improvement under either existing, or modified policies and proce dures. A related aspect of the study was to review the interrelationships of the Department and the Joint Committee on Highways on PPB matters, with particular emphasis on identification of areas for improving the flow of information. Each of these study objectives has been achieved. The subcommittee has a more thorough understanding of current PPB policies and procedures; we have assessed the Department's ability to program and budget effectively; and certain areas for improvement have been identified and are being implemented, to varying degrees. In addition, the flow of information to the Joint Committee on Highways has already improved substantially and fur ther gains are expected. The following are summary findings and recommendations of the study: 1. Further study is required since the State is entering into a period of change in the entire PPB process, and implementation of new PPB procedures is a dynamic and evolutionary process. The Joint Commit tee on Highways should continue this effort, in cooperation with the Department of Highways.

[24] 2. With the exception of certain areas noted below, existing Department policies and procedures are considered to be generally very profes sional, appropriate and adequate to reasonably reflect future needs for financial resources. 3. A prime area for improvement is to develop comprehensive, formal planning and programming procedures covering all activities of the Department. This is an essential prerequisite to more effective budget development. A formal six-year total resource requirements program should be prepared and updated biennially. This program should be used as the principal basis for development of each biennial budget request commencing with the request for the 1973-75 Biennium. 4. The development of more comprehensive budget guidance should im prove the quality of budget estimates. The guidance should establish intermediate objectives for the biennium based on a studied and determined expectation of the future within the overall context of adopted longer-range program levels and objectives. 5. While considerable improvements have been made in maintenance budgeting procedures, further refinement of maintenance quality and work standards will assist in achieving the maximum benefits that a standardized work-plan budgeting system can provide. 6. The improvement of inventory management practices is necessary in order to prepare more responsive budgets for supplies and materials. A detailed study should be performed as soon as possible, but not later than the start of the 1971-73 Biennium. 7. The development of appropriate program/performance criteria for aU programs is feasible. While a limited number of criteria have been established, the effort should be expedited with the objective of full implementation for the 1973-75 Biennium program and budget cycle. In an effort to improve the flow of PPB information, the subcommittee recommended changes in the types of data and formats of budget documents and periodic reports to the Legislature. These revised documents should facilitate the legislative review and appropriations process since the informa tion will be more readable and understandable. We have made significant progress in our study and review activities during the interim, but it is only a start. In cooperation with the Department of Highways, we can anticipate that during the next several years further refinements and innovations in PPB procedures will be accomplished. In the meantime, the members of the 1971 session of the Legislature will be better informed than ever before on highway programming and budgeting matters. Another major effort of the subcommittee in this area was to establish a new procedure this year to review the "execution" phase of the budget cycle. The initial Budget Execution Review (BER) of the Department of Highways was presented on July 30, 1970. A similar BER of the lurban construction program (state, county and city) was conducted on September 10, 1970. These sessions were very informative and beneficial to this subcommittee since they provided "feedback" data on progress being made in achieving budget plans, any major problem ax'eas and management's plans to resolve them, indications of future problem areas, and the potential impact on future programs and budgets. The subcommittee also received several briefings on the proposed 1971-73 Biennium budget requests of the Department of High ways and the Urban Arterial Board.

[25] As a result of these budget reviews, it is evident to this subcommittee that the currently established Urban Construction Program is progressing in an excellent manner. Program status as of June 30, 1970, is as follows: State System—112 projects have been established involving 238 miles of highways. —35 projects (27 complete and 8 partial) were completed in volving 51 miles of highways. —61 contracts for $60.1 million were awarded. —95% of program expenditures are expected to be accom plished by the end of the 1971-73 Biennium. Cities and County Network— —445 projects have been established involving 391 miles of arterials. —127 projects were completed involving 99 miles. —133 projects were under contract for construction with the balance of the projects in the Right-of-Way or Design phase. —99% of total projects are expected to be completed by the end of the 1971-73 Biennium. Notwithstanding the successes of the Urban Construction Program, a major concern is that the needs of both the state and local systems are only partially being met by the currently established program. The following data clearly indicate the magnitude of the problem:

MILEAGE Improved By Total Current Program Unimproved System Miles Miles % Miles % State 661 238 36 423 64 (Non-Interstate) City and County 3,410 391 12 3,019 88 Total Statewide 4,071 629 15 3,442 85

FUNDS (In Millions) Current Remaining Needs Thru Program Needs

System 1975 Amount % Amount % State $ 690 $291» 42 $399 58 (Non-Interstate) City and County $ 617 $238 39 $379 61 ($181M-State) Total Statewide $1,307 $520 40 $778 60

'Includes $91 million of regular state construction fimds which are required to complete the program.

It is obvious that there is now and will continue to be for the foreseeable futme, an urgent requirement for not only the current program funds, but also additional funds to satisfy the most pressing needs of the established urban system, since 60% of these needs still remain.

[26] The regiilar construction program for state highways is likewise lacking in adequate levels of funding to meet statewide needs. With the exception of the Interstate program which will be discussed separately below, the follow ing chart shows the anticipated rates of development on the remaining four classes of highways based on anticipated revenues:

Rates of Development (%) Needs Thru Thru Thru Thru Class 1985 1973 1977 1985 (In Millions)

$ 739 15 34 94 Major ,. 514 9 25 87 Collector 401 11 25 80 Other 86 6 19 71

$1,740 12 29 88

It is rather self-evident that the overall statewide rates of development of only 12% through the 1971-73 Biennivim and 29% for the six-year period through 1977 represent barely minimum acceptable levels of accomplishment. While it can be demonstrated there is a need for providing additional funding for the construction program, there must certainly is ample justifica tion for insuring that the program is maintained at currently projected levels. The current construction program includes a requirement for $632 million to complete the Interstate program. On the basis of past experience, approxi mately $76 million, or 12 percent of that amount represents state matching funds. The allocation of these state fimds to the Interstate program is in consonance with existing state priority programming laws, which place the highest priority on completion of the Interstate system in accordance with Federal law and regulation. Until December 1970, the future of the Interstate program was by no means clearly established. However, the Congress re cently passed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970. This Act extends the completion date of the Interstate system until 1976. This new date represents a real challenge to develop and complete large scale Interstate projects in a timely, orderly manner without serious interruptions of the type encoimtered in the past. Delays on these projects have been costly cue to the infiation factor. For example, construction estimates for all projects in the current biennium are, on the average, about 19 percent above the original budget estimates. On this basis, about $20 million will be lost this bienniiun due to inflation. Continued delays wiU be more costly to the State in the future since these large scale projects could become no longer authorized for Federal Aid participation. In this situation, it is obvious that either the projects would not be constructed, or that they would be constructed using only state funds. Neither of these alternatives is acceptable. A reduction in revenues for construction would have a major impact on the city and county construction programs, as well as the state highwiay system. For example, the following data shows the financial impact of a reduction of 2

[27] REDUCTION APPLIED TO STATE SYSTEM ONLY Distribution of Distribution of SVb4 Portion of 4Ys4 Portion of Revenue Agency 94 M.V.F. Tax 74 M.V.F. Tax Loss

State $448 M $217 M $231 M Counties 263 M 263 M .... Cities 84 M 84 M ....

TOTAL $795 M $564 M $231 M

'The reduction is applied to only the SVai portion of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax since the 2i'8(! portion is primarily for debt service.

REDUCTION APPLIED TO STATE, COUNTIES AND CITIES Distribution of Distribution of^ 67/8 4 Portion of 47/84 Portion Revenue Agency 94 M.V.F. Tax 74 M.V.F. Tax: Loss

State $448 M $317 M $131 M Counties 263 M 187 M 76 M Cities 84 M 60 M 24 M

TOTAL $795 M $564 M $231 M

'The reduction is applied to only the 6%« portion of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax since the 2»,'8^ portion is primarily for debt service. ^The percentage distribution formula does not change.

The revenue loss to the State system in the first instance represents about a 48 percent decrease. The loss to all three agencies in the second instance amounts to about a 29 percent decrease. These losses would seri ously impair each agency's ability to not only accomplish its own construc tion program; but, more importantly, deny adequate funds for matching requirements. This latter impact is more significant in view of the "multi plier" effect whereby $1 of local matching funds provides much more than $1 of benefits. Our continued ability to match Federal Aid funds with State and local funds in the near future is a matter of great concern. One of the provisions of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 is that the matching ratio for other than Interstate projects will become 70 percent Federal and 30 percent State beginning in the first fiscal year of the 1973-75 Biennium. The matching requirements of Interstate projects remains at the nominal 90 percent/10 percent ratio. The potential impact of this new 70-30 matching requirement should be analyzed in consideration of the end of the Interstate Program in 1976, and an anticipated increase in the other Federal Aid highway programs at the same time. The following comparison data clearly indicates the increasing demand for State and local matching funds:

Federal Aid State Matching Total Program Biennium Amount % Amount % Amount %

1971-73 $345 M 82 $75 M 18 $420 M 100 ($277 M)^ ($29 M)' 1975-77 $244 M 72 $94 M 28 $338 M 100 ($ 34 M)* ($ 4M)'

'Interstate Program portion.

[28] The need for $19 million more of State and local funds in 1975-77 to match a total Federal Aid program which will decrease $101 million appears to be contradictory at first glance. However, the substantial decrease in the Interstate program, with its low demand for local matching funds, is the primary reason for this situation. In any event, it is obvious that these funds will have to be allocated for matching purposes if we are to continue to participate fully in the Federal Aid program. The incontrovertible conclusion that follows from the above discussion is that every dollar of projected revenue for the construction programs, both state and local, is required just to meet our most pressing needs. Any reduction in these funds could precipitate a crisis situation in existing highway programs.

SXJBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS Senator Robert McDougall, Chairman

WITHHOLDING OF FEDERAL FUNDS

Federal-aid funds Availability of federal funds is at tliis time the most imcertain portion of the highway program. During the last three years substantial portions of Federal-aid funds which Congress has appropriated have been withheld from the States. Because of the unemployment situation now existing in Washing ton, further withholding of funds can only deal another serious blow to the economy. Any temporary delay in federal funds has a serious detrimental effect on the highway program of a much longer duration than the withhold ing period itself. Because of the necessity of planning and getting construc tion underway at favorable seasons of the year a delay in federal fimds for even a few months can mean a delay of one or two years on a given project. It appears that Congress, in the 1970 Federal-aid Highway Act, may attempt to prevent the Executive Branch from such withholding practices which are contrary to its intent.

Forest Highway Funds Withholding has also occurred for portions of Forest Highway Funds which Congress has appropriated. For the state of Washington, a total of $3.7 million has been withheld. Forest Highway Fimds may only be used for projects on designated forest highways which include both state highways and coimty roads. The withholding of these funds has had serious ramifications on the highway program, since program planning and execution are based on pres ent and future fiscal year apportionments. It is difficult to administer a highway program when there is uncertainty as to fimds available. Projects scheduled to be constructed with these funds, often critical projects, are delayed. This in turn causes uncertainty regarding other projects which were scheduled in relation to the delayed forest highway projects. Because of these difficulties, and because of the critical economic climate in the state, every effort should be made to obtain the full amount of these withheld forest highway funds. There are five projects which could be advertised for bid between February 1 and August 1, 1971, if such funds were made available.

[29] JOINT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL In recognition that land use issues are among the most far-reaching and controversial problems facing the highway program, and in an effort to contribute to a workable solution to these problems, the Federal Highway Administration earlier this year prepared a report entitled "Joint Develop ment of Highways and Affected Land—Some Implications for Land Acquisi tion and Control." Joint development as discussed in this report would entail extending the authority for public acquisition or control of land in a joint development area to all land reasonably expected to be influenced by highway improve ments. The report states: "What is basic is the harmonious development of the highway and its environment. Where it is desirable in order to assure compatible land uses near the highway, the joint development concept en compasses acquisition of land beyond that needed for right-of-way and even considerably removed from it." In essence, a program of this type would require the joint planning and development of both the highway and the broad corridor through which it passes by all affected public jurisdictions including highway authorities. Such a corridor might,for example, extend up to two miles in width. The benefits envisaged from a program of broad scale joint corridor development include the following: 1. Assure improvement in quality of life of all persons affected by highway facilities, both when directly using it and when residing in the vicinity of a highway. 2. Prevent the overloading of transportation facilities (and other seiw- ices) by unplanned and unanticipated development following on the heels of the highway's completion. 3. Protect the highway investment from deteriorating encroachments. 4. Channel to the community and the public-at-large the increases in land values generated by the highway, built with public funds. 5. More ready acceptance of a highway project by affected communities. The Federal Highway Administration is interested in an appraisal being made in each state of the possibilities of implementing such an effort, perhaps at first, on a pilot basis. Because the potential benefits of such a program are so far-reaching, and because the interagency cooperation would be quite innovative and involve so many governmental units, it would be desirable that this appraisal be made by the Legislature. RECOMMENDATION: That the Joint Committee on Highways study the feasibility of implementing this joint development proposal in Washington and report to the next regular session of the Legislature.

NEW FEDERAL LAWS Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1970 A major achievement in the effort to aid public transportation systems was the enactment of the Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1970, which was signed into law on October 15. This act provides for the expenditure of $3.1 billion for public transportation improvements over the next five years

[30] and pledges Congressional intent to spend $10 billion over a 12-year period. Funds from this act will be used for improvements to bus systems and other commuter and transit services. It will also make possible the future financing of new transit systems now in research and development phases.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 This act, signed by the President on January 1, 1970 declares a national environmental policy designed to achieve a harmonious and productive bal ance between providing for the social and economic needs of our society and preserving important historic cultural and national heritage. The act requires all agencies of the Federal Government, which would include the Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Admin istration—and ultimately the Washington State Department of Highways—^to administer all laws and policies in accordance with this act and to include in every recommendation or report on major federal actions significantly affect ing the quality of the human environment a detailed statement on the environmental impact of the proposed action, alternatives to the proposed action, the relationship between long-term and short-term uses of the envi ronmental resources, and the nature of irreversible commitments of re sources.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS The sub-committee on Federal programs recommends the Joint Commit tee on Highways of the Washington State Legislature adopt the following objectives toward which the Washington State Highway Commission should direct its efforts in developing the most desirable Federal-aid Highway Program after completion of the presently authorized and designated inter state system of highways. 1. Extend the interstate program imtil the present authorized and desig nated interstate system is complete. 2. Provide for the upgrading of sections of the interstate system where needed but make no additions to the system beyond those presently authorized and designated by law. 3. Continue the present Federal Highway Trust Fund and revenues going into it following the completion of the presently authorized and desig nated interstate program for the improvement of federal-aid highways. 4. Provide for a new federal-aid luban arterial system to be financed from the Federal Highway Trust Fund as expenditures on the Inter state system decrease. 5. The future formulas dealing with distribution of federal highway funds that are based on dollar needs should recognize that Washington has already satisfied a significant portion of such needs through the urban state highway system and the urban arterial program and should ensure that Washington is not penalized for having taken this action to satisfy its needs. 6. Develop percentages of allocations of funds to the various systems and develop state-federal matching ratios which will best satisfy the needs of the state highway departments and their ability to finance the program. The Washington State Highway Commission should work closely with the American Association of State Highway Officials and

[31] its member states in developing the most desirable federal-aid highway program in implementing this policy. 7. The cost of maintaining and operating the state highway systems in federal-aid projects located thereon shall continue to be the responsi bility of the state. 8. The Washington State Highway Commission will continue to keep the Joint Committee on Highways informed of recommendations for the federal-aid highway program proposed by the American Association of State Highway Officials. 9. The language of Section 134, Title 23, IT. S. Code, Highways, popularly known as the "30 Planning Process", be strengthened in such a manner that it will be more effective in coordinating highway develop ment and land use development so as to protect the public's invest ment in both development programs. Such a strengthening would assure that the development of both highways and adjacent land uses would conform to approved plans and assure fulfillment of those plans.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT Senator Nat Washington, Chairman I. Industrial Dispersion and Diversification Legislation The major effort of the Subcommittee during this biennium was to continue the studies of the effect of dispersing industry on the cost of providing highways to service these industries and areas. The 1967 Omnibus Bill mandated the Committee to review what possible effects increased industrialization outside the metropolitan area might have on the expenditure of road construction funds over the next decades. Battelle Northwest was retained into investigate this problem. One of their conclu sions was that if only 15 percent of the manufacturing industry presently anticipated to be located in the Puget Sound area could be located outside the metropolitan area, nearly $50 million per year would be saved in highway construction costs. Mr. Ned Weaver, Transportation Economist with the Department of High ways, was loaned to the Joint Committee on Highways during the last biennium to continue in depth the examination of the effect of such policy changes. Mr. Weaver examined how Washington State's economy compared with those of other states and whether there were any significant policies adopted at the state level that had brought about a more stable economic base. The Subcommittee has prepared several items of legislation based on the findings Mr. Weaver compiled in his report, Industrial Dispersion and Diver sification for Washington State. The bills being presented are an attempt to present several broad ideas. There will probably be many refinements made during the course of the forthcoming session of the Legislature. The Subcommittee also wishes to commend Mr. Rod Rolfson. Research Assistant to the Joint Committee on Highways, who assisted Mr. Weaver in developing the report, and who drafted the bills.

[32] The first of these bills woiild establish a state industrial dispersion autliority, which woiild be empowered to encourage the location of industry in the non-congested outlying areas. The authority would be able to make loans available to port districts for industrial development and thus would increase the fiow of private capital into these non-congested areas. The second bill establishes sales and use tax exemptions for the installa tion of machinery and equipment and for building construction in connection with industrial dispersion and diversification projects. The third bill establishes a state industrial diversification authority, mod eled on the provisions of the industrial dispersion authority, which would be directed at creating a more stable economic base in areas which presently rely primarily on the aerospace industry. It establishes procedures by which the authority can extend credit through the port districts to industries which participate in the purposes of the act. The last bill establishes a state mortgage insurance authority which would back up loans from private investment sources for such capital as is directed into projects covered in the dispersion or diversification bills. The Subcommittee has no intention in presenting these bills of setting up a multiplicity of new agencies. One authority would be the same for all three activities—extending credit for diversification, dispersion and making deter minations as to mortgage insurance. However, since the purposes of the bills are distinct, it was thought that consideration of each of them independently would be useful. The last item in the package is a constitutional amendment. There has been some question as to whether Article 8, Sec. 7, of the state constitution might not preclude the involvement of the state's credit for these purposes. Although we are satisfied that these bills did not need a constitutional amendment, we recommend that this amendment be approved by the Legis lature for submission to the electorate, and thus preclude future litigation and possible delays in implementing the remedies being presented in these bills. One of the most useful by-products of this study was that, besides the development of information useful for determining policies aimed at disper sion of industry throughout the state, we feel that many of these ideas can be adopted to bringing industrial diversification to the Puget Sound area as well. Since the economic downturn in the state has reached crisis proportions in many areas, we recommend that these bills be enacted by the 1971 Legislature and that they be adequately funded to permit the most effective return on the investment of our resources during this critical period.

II. Special Fuel Taxation The Subcommittee has also had under consideration legislation that would modify some of the procedures for collecting the use fuel tax for fuel used for highway purposes. The bill we have under study is modeled largely on the Texas statute which has served as a model for legislation in this field throughout the nation. Although this bill is still being modified slightly, it will be ready for introduction early in the Session. We would recommend its favorable consid eration by the standing committees of the House and Senate.

[33] III. Allocation of User Taxes The Subcommittee has also studied the equitable allocation of user taxes among the various groups of highway users. We were surprised to discover that the State of Washington currentiy ranks in the western states as among the highest in highway related taxes— registration fees, license fees, and other taxes. On the other hand, gross weight fees for contract carriers in Washington rank with the lower fee structures among the western states, especially for heavier vehicles. In light of these facts, we would recommend that the Joint Committee on Highways continue to analyze and study the distribution of taxes among the various classes of highway users and develop recommendations that would reflect a more equitable distribution of the tax burdens. We are inclined to think that some of the traditional studies that have allocated the costs of highway facilities among the several types of highway users have taken insuflficient account of the space actually required for heavy, slower contract carriers, the added costs for right-of-way for con struction of interchanges to handle such carriers, as well as the increased construction costs caused by reduction in grades, as well as added mainte nance costs. These considerations deserve, we suggest, the careful scrutiny of the Joint Committee on Highways.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS ADMINISTRATION Senator Sam Guess, Chairman The subcommittee on Highways Administration was directed by the Le^lature (Laws of 1969, Chapter 281, Section 37(6) 1st Ex. Sess.) to review "existing highway hearing procedures in relation to the federal highway hearing requirements." The problem v/as caused by an effort in the 1969 Session (SB 284) to impose very detailed hearing requirements on all highway agencies when ever any kind of highway project was contemplated. The standing commit tees of the House and Senate reviewed these proposals and listened to testimony from many agencies that would be affected by such provisions. In light of the great disparity between projects like a two-mile addition to a county road in Adams Coimt yand a project of the magnitude of 1-90 in Seattle, it became clear that very different hearing requirements were de manded in different types of cases. W recognize the changing needs for public participation, particularly in the urban areas of the state, where a highway has serious social and cultural effects on a neighborhood. But we cannot agree to impose procedures that would make the construction of needed facilities virtually impossible. If the majority, through its elected representatives, has decided to go ahead with a project, the expense of delay, through higher construction costs and higher property values, becomes considerable. We suggest it would be irresponsible for the subcommitte to recommend that either hearings or occasions for lengthy litigation be made so complicated that nothing could ever be done. During the course of our study, we witnessed several hearings relating to major highway projects, and we sympathize with the kind of treatment

[34] to which the members of the Highway Commission have been subjected on several occasions. But we recommend that the Legislature refrain from en- actmg provisions that would make their task any more difficult. The present federal standards, requiring two sets of hearings for any project involving federal aid, are very specific, and see mto us to aUow re^ona e public expression. We recommend that these requirements be retained m their present form.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MOTOR VEmCLE STANDARDS Senator Hubert Donohue, Chairman

.+h ®^ session ofamendments the Legislature, to the the abandoned subcommittee vehicles was statutes, directed enacted to exam- by e e act to see if further improvements were needed. , members of the tow truck industry and testimony at thf» +V, ^ subcommittee indicated that there is general satisfaction with ^ u operating. Tow truck operators have been able to clear in«!tannoc vehicles in half the time previously taken, in many +iti ®^®®^^cturers with collusion in not proceeding with the develop- frraoc strict devices.standards, The logically outcome should of the precedesuit and any action adoption by Con- of state legislation in this field. ".7 ,ominister school was bus conducted programs with on representativesthe possibility of from the Legislatureschool districts adopting who o cies relatmg to overloading of school busses. Comprehensive regulations ave een adopted by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, imder present statutes. Tbe consensus of the school bus administrators was that legislation on out extremely difficult to draft The administrators pointed tinn o ^ iwons vapr so greatly from one district to another that legisla- ho TT? *t '^^enforceable.3set, aside from Respondents an outright to prohibition a questionaire on overloading, sent out by would the mmi ee mdicated that several million dollars in costs for additional sses wo d be required if overloading were to be prohibited. School district o cia s reported that routes are continually being readjusted so that over- loadmg IS held to an absolute minimum, A mandate in the Onmibus Highways Bill directed that the subcommittee 00k mto the problems of slow-moving vehicles, including campers and a ers, operating upon high-speed highways, and that of undersized vehicles not readily visible to the drivers of conventional vehicles. nvesti^tion by the staff indicated that studies have been made on many p ases o e problem of truck weights and horsepower ratios, but none exist

[35] on. the specific problem of the Veirious combinations of cars, pick-up trucks, campers and boat and house trailers that use our highways. At the present time, illegal combinations would include three units, such as an automobile or pickup-up truck towing a house trailer and a following boat trailer. All three-vehicle combinations must have brakes of the progres sive type, such that the third vehicle must be equipped so that the back brakes take hold prior to the front brakes of that vehicle. The brakes of all three units must be capable of being activated from the tractor or pulling unit. Large commercial rigs are the only ones which would meet these standards. We are advised by the State Patrol that enforcement of the present regulations takes care of almost all problems of this type. The most difificult traffic problems are encountered in week-end traffic in such areas as the ocean beaches and the Olympic Peninsula and across the mountain passes, when campers and trailers slow the traffic flow considerably, espe cially on two-lane I'outes. Extra enforcement efforts are made by the State Patrol at these times and roadway improvements in these areas will be beneficial in improving traffic flows. It is recommended that the Department of Highways give particular attention to the need for climbing lanes on heavily traveled recreational routes. At the request of Chairman Henry, the subcommittee studied the require ments of the Federal Highway Safety Act for program of periodic motor vehicle inspections. At the present time, the state's "spot-check" law has been accepted by the U.S. Department of Transportation as meeting the current federal periodic inspection standard. A presentation was made to the subcommittee by the RCA Corporation of a "package" program of inspection lanes developed by that organization. The RCA plan would be financed by the inspection charge on each vehicle, in^ the range of from $3 to $5. All manpower would be included in the "package," as well as the cost of the inspection lanes, so that the state's administrative costs would be at a bare minimum, largely being accounted for in the expenses of administering a contract with RCA. It was the consensus of the subcommittee that in the event that the federal program required inspection lanes that a program such as that offered by RCA would be preferred over the old system of 20 years ago, when the lanes were constructed, equipped and operated by the personnel of the State Patrol. The subcommittee also studied the problems of snowmobiles and other types of all-terrain vehicles. At the request of Senator Guess, previous sponsor of legislation in this field, the subcommittee considered revised legislation developed by affected state agencies, under the chairmanship of the State Parks Department. This legislation will be presented to the 1971 Legislature, and the subcommittee recommends support of the measure in which the affected agencies concur.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SAFETY Senator A1 Henry, Chairman The recommendations of the Citizens' Advisory Committee on Highway Safety were received by the full committee at its meeting in Richland, September 16. These are reviewed by the subcommittee in the following report and recommendations on the bills subcommitted with a "do pass" on seven of the measures:

[36] 1. Emergency Medical Services (Ambulance) Bill. 2. Habitual Offenders Bill. 3. Extension of Justice Court Act. 4. Mandatory Juvenile Violation Reports Bill. 5. Omnibi^ BiU Amendment for Traffic Safety Commission to Study Allocation of Funds to Cities and Counties. 6. Driver Education Fimd Bill. 7. Spot-check Amendment Bill. On two other recommendations of the citizens' committee, the snowmobile bill will be the subject of a meeting of the Motor Vehicle Standards Subcommittee today, and the hulk hauler's bill has been deferred. This legislation, developed initially by the Legislative Council, now proposes that $1.50 per registered vehicle be diverted from the highway gas tax fund to set up a program to pay haulers to get hulks to scrap dealers. We do not believe that car hulks are such a serious highway safety factor that this amount of some $3,750,000 should be diverted from the gas tax funds for their disposal. The question of amendments to the uniform traffic code, as it relates to pedestrians has been referred to Senator Washington, our representative on the national uniform traffic code committee.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE PATROL ADMINISTRATION Representative C. W. Beck, Chairman The 1969 Legislature mandated the Joint Committee on Highways to conduct: "A study of the financing of the Washington state patrol. The committee shall consider the long-range financing needs of the state patrol and the appropriate moans of meeting such needs taking into account both high way and non-highway functions performed by the state patrol. . ." (Sec. 37[22], Ch. 281, Laws of 1969, 1st Ex. Sess.) Four major areas of the study included: (1) determination of manpower needs, (2) program costs; (3) review of current financing; and (4) analysis of alternative financing methods and sources.

Manpower Needs A survey of law enforcement agencies of other states and major cities was made to determine methods for forecasting appropriate program levels, as well as comparability of compensation and benefits of the State Patrol with other jurisdictions. Studies are in progress to determine the relationship of program level (manpower) and accident rates; however, the data is yet inconclusive. International Association of Chiefs of Police forecasting models were adapted for determination of traffic and drug control manpower require ments. The traffic formula relates manpower to vehicle miles travelled on the state highway system. Projections of non-traffic needs (nine percent of personnel; 11 percent of cost) were based primarily on historical projections. The recommended long-range goal for the traffic program level is to achieve the "essential" (mean) level by the end of the 18-year "catch-un" period (1989). ixi,

[37] Due to the depressed state of the economy in Washington, it is recom mended that only 60 new line commissioned positions be added in 1971-73; and, that no new support or general support (Tactical Squad) positions be added. Below is a summary of manpower required at various points over the 1971-89 "catch up" period. The traflBc force will increase by 2% times; the non-traffic force wiU double.

Manpower Required fiscal Year Line Support Non- Ending Traffic Traffic Traffic Total

1971 720 375 78 1,173 1973 780 375 88 1,243 1977 1,020 500 134 1,654 1989 1,800 940 155 2,895

Program Costs Study restdts indicate the need to provide: (1) overtime to maintain a higher level of service, to provide comparability with major cities, and to add additional personnel time in 1971-73 for less cost than new positions; (2) statutory provision for annual adjustment of the Patrol's training (Academy) step to compare with major cities and coimties; (3) reduction in time from the beginning (Academy) step to the top step of the trooper salary range from 4% years to 3% years, to provide for aimual increases from the second to the fifth step. Below is a summary of costs in terms of 1971-73 dollars, and inflated dollars:

Program Costs Inflated Dollars (4% per year Operations; 1971-73 Dollars 3% per year Cap.Improv.) Non- Non- Period Traffic Troflic Total Traffic Traffic Total (millions of dollars) (millions of dollars)

1971-73 38.7 4.0 42.7 38.7 4.0 42.7 (2-year) 1971-89 570.0 50.0 620.0 830.0 70.0 900.0 (18-year)

Current Financing During the 1969-71 biennium all program costs (except drug control) were funded from the State Patrol Highway Account. Previously, General Fund moneys have been utilized for non-highway activities. History has shown that this Accotmt, supported by portions of two fees (vehicle registration and driver's license) and treated as a "zero balance" accoimt, have not been responsive to increasing program needs and costs. The 1969-71 biennium is a typical example, with an estimated revenue shortage of $2.5 million.

[38] Below is a comparison of revenue projections and costs, based on current fees and inflated program costs:

Revenue and Costs Compared Traffic Projected Revenue Program Costs (Inflated) Revenue S.P.H,A. #109 (4% per year Operations Below Period 3% per year Cap.Improv.) Costs (millions of dollars)

1971-73 34 39 (5) (2-year) 1971-89 400 900 (500) (18-year)

Funding Method and Sources The current method described above lacks the flexibility required to provide the necessary revenue without biennial fee increases. RECOMMENDATION: (1) That the State Patrol Highway Account be eliminated and revenue be transferred to the Motor Vehicle Fund; (2) that traflic activities be fimded from the Motor Vehicle Fimd; (3) that non-traffic activities be fimded from the General Fxmd; and (4) that the vehicle registration fee be increased in 1971-73 by $2, and that the personal and boat trailer fee be made one-half of the vehicle registration fee. If the above four recommendations are adopted, the inflexibility of the current financing method will be eliminated and no further fee increases will be required for six years. There will be no net drain on highway construc tion fimds for the six-year period.

Other Endorsements Other recommendations include: (1) Enactment of witness fee legislation. (2) Further study of State Patrol assistance role to local law enforcement agencies.

Legislation Required The following legislation will be required: (1) Elimination of the State Patrol Highway Account with transfCT of revenues to Motor Vehicle Fund. (2) Increase in vehicle registration, and personal and boat trailer fees. (3) Amending of minimiun salary provisions to provide for annual review of training step. (4) Provision for civil litigant witness fees.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PLANNING Senator Ehner C. Huntley, Chairman The Subcommittee on Planning was given the responsibility to continue the work initiated during the last biennium which analyzed the total high way road and street needs of the State of Washington projected to 1990. Our

[39] mandate to is to devise a program by which available revenues could be most effectively expended to satisfy those needs. (Section 37, Ch. 281, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess.) After the completion of the major studies in January, 1969, which were prepared by Allinson, Inc., and Price Waterhouse & Co., the subcommittee prepared draft legislation based on the recommendations of the consultants. This draft was circulated to city, county and state elected officials and engineers, and twenty-three hearings were held throughout the state during the summer of 1970. During these hearings, the legislation was explained and the advice and comments of people involved directly in these fields were solicited. The consultants and the members of the subcommittee were very pleased with the time and study the people who had reviewed the legislation had given the draft, and we gained many very valuable insights from these hearings. In light of the information developed from the hearings, the bill was redrafted during November, 1970, and approved by the Joint Committee on Highways for presentation to the 1971 Legislature. We recommend the pas sage of this bill relating to highway needs and financing, and consider its passage essential to the progress of the highway planning process throughout the State of Washington. Our reasons for this strong recommendation stem from the clear need to allocate the available revenues from the motor vehicle fuel tax in as effective a manner as possible. This tax generates a substantial amount of revenue each year, and there is now and will continue to be an unfounded suspicion in the minds of some that these revenues exceed the needs. Our study shows that this is far from the actual case. Allinson, Inc., the engineering consul tants, estimate that the revenues from the gas tax will fall nearly $4 billion short of meeting the needs for the highways, roads and streets of the state by 1990. If we are to maintain tlie roadway system of the state even at its present level of efficiency, we will not be in any position to expand the use of gas tax revenues; rather, we should give serious considei'ation to ways of increasing revenues to meet these needs. However, before we can reasonably request the Legislature to increase these revenues, we should make every effort to insure that presently author ized revenues are being expended in the most effective manner. We cannot report that this is in fact the case at the present time. Since we really do not have an exact idea of what the real, proven needs of the cities, counties and state are, we have no true criteria by which to judge whether or not we are distributing presently available funds in answer to these needs. This is the purpose of the legislation we are introducing, and the need for new and effective procedures is clear to anyone who has been close to highway financing through the years. The problem also arises from the somewhat disorderly manner in which highway financing has historically occurred in the state. The need for increased facilities has been pressing for many decades, and with the consti tutional amendment reserving the gas tax monies for highway purposes, a fairly predictable source of revenue has been established. However, the competition for these revenues among the thirty-nine counties, the 267 cities, and the state as a whole, has presented some serious questions to the Legislature as to how these revenues might best be allocated. At the present time, there is a statutory allocation, passed in 1967 when the last gas tax increase was enacted, which divides the revenues among the [40] three levels of government (RCW 46.68.100). Although there is nothing sacrossuict about this division, it has the advantage of avoiding a continuing debate about how the gas tax revenues can best be allocated among the three levels. Such predictability is not presently provided, however, when the further allocation to individual counties and cities is involved. The distribution to the cities is made solely on the basis of population; distribution to the counties is based on a formula which was developed many years ago, and has proved to be a soxirce of intense competition among the several counties. One factor in this formula is to be adjusted every foui* years by concurrent action of the Joint Committee on Highways and the Highway Commission, and although two such adjustments have been made, in 1966 and 1970, it is becoming more and more clear that this formula is no longer responsive to the objective needs of the individual counties. We would be less than candid if we did not report that there was considerable reluctance on the part of the cities and counties of the state to change the current method of allocating these motor vehicle fuel tax funds. Such reluctance may have been caused by anticipating adverse results from any new method of allocation, but undoubtedly some stems from a hesitancy to convert to a method whose procedures are less readily predictable than the present methods. Such fears, while understandable, sire not, in our opinion, legitimate reason not to adopt the bill our Subcommittee has prepared for the 1971 Legislature. We feel that the revenues generated by the motor vehicle fuel tax are monies contributed by the motorists of the state to provide the most effective transportation system possible. These funds should not be distrib uted on the basis of political influence, logrolling, or any other basis than that of pi'oven need. In order to do this, we are recommending in the bill that the Legislature establish a Highway Finance Board, and that this Board begin the process of collecting needs from the local agencies, making what ever adjustments are necessary in order to insure comparability among the several highway agencies of the state, and developing an allocation formula based on objective need. To provide the Highway Finance Board with the kind of information they will need to handle these responsibilities effectively, the Joint Committee on Highways has contracted with the State Auditor (Section 37(10), Chapter 281, Laws of 1969, First Extraordinary Session) to begin developing a uniform system of highway accounting for all levels of government. The aim here is to provide comparable information, so that one agency does not come up with estimates of needs that are totally imrelated to the needs of other agencies throughout the state. The Chairman has appointed an advisory committee of representatives from city, county, and state government, includ ing technical people who are expert in both the engineering and the financial procedures of their agencies, to assist the Auditor in this work. This informa tion was shown to be essential during the course of our studies. In making the needs studies and in preparing fiscal recommendations for the Committee, the consultants constantly ran into the problem of trying to extrapolate objective data from the multiplicity of records kept by the highway agencies. In part, this contributed to the reluctance of city and county officials to accept the conclusions contained in the reports. Once a uniform system has been introduced and become the standard operating procedure of the several agencies of government concerned with

[41] highway transportation, the Highway Finance Board will have the kind of information it needs to make an equitable allocation of motor vehicle funds to all the agencies of the state. Until such time as the Board has had some experience with the compilation of objective data, there is no way to anticipate what the needs of any particular agency will be. Although we have some indication of what allocations might be if we could accept the needs collected by the consultants who worked with our Committee, it would be premature to say that such information, based as it is on data that nearly everyone involved in gathering it concedes to be deficient, is a dependable and objective basis for allocating limited resources. The most basic need, therefore, is for objective, reliable information upon which we can develop a formula for allocating available revenues. This is the purpose of creating the Highway Finance Board and authorizing it to execute these responsibilities. We, therefore, strongly recommend that the Legislature deliberate on the biU we have prepared, and consider it carefully. Its adoption, in oiur judge ment, would be a significant step in the right direction, and one that we must teike to insure that the motor vehicle fund is expended as effectively and as efficiently as possible.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON URBAN TRANSPORTATION Senator Richard G. Marquardt, Chairman

The Subcommittee on Urban Transportation has been very actively trying to analyze some rather basic policies relating to urban transportation prob lems of the state. In some areas, we have met with considerable success; in others, we are more persuaded than before that since the problems are complex and involve long-range policy, they deserve the serious attention, discussion and debate of the members of the Legislature. During the early part of the biennium, the members of the Subcommittee spent a considerable amount of time analyzing the various responsibilities of the many government agencies of the Puget Sound region as they relate to transportation. We found that, while there are occasional instances of over lapping responsibilities, the general level of cooperation and communication is good between the cities and counties bordering the Puget Sound, the Puget Sound Governmental Conference, and the State Highway Department.

1. Balanced Transportation: During the course of our hearings, we were continually confronted with the question; How viable and progressive is the regional transportation system in the Puget Sound area, particularly as it relates to the balance between public and private modes of transportation? We would conclude that public transportation in this area has never been restored to the level of service reached during the time when the Interurban Railroad provided reliable and reasonably priced service in the Everett-Seattle-Tacoma corri dor. Therefore, we recommend that during the next interim period, the Joint Committee on Highways discuss several specific questions relating to the development of an effective transportation system, particularly in the Puget

[42] Sound area. These discussions should include some consideration of the following items: (1) "What legal, financial, or political obstacles are presently barring the operation of regional bus systems in metropolitan areas of the state that would be both efficient and economical, and what recommenda tions to remove these obstacles should be submitted to the next Legislature? What have been the effects of Blue Streak on public preferences, and could be expanded? (2) In light of recent federal legislation which nationalized certain parts of the railroad system, might not an effective state program along similar lines be tried which would result in the development of a commuter system, utilizing existing rail lines, and thus providing an effective public transportation system? (3) What can the legislature do to assist local agencies in and around Seattle to resolve transportation problems?

These recommendations arise from several factors that have been made clear to the members of the Subcommittee repeatedly during the coiorse of our work this biennium. The Committee should inquire into the causes and possible solutions to the "freeway revolt," and discuss policies implementing these solutions. Such an examination by persons directly responsible for policy is badly needed, and we recommend that this examination be made in as much depth as possible through discussion by the members of the Joint Committee on Highways themselves.

2. Urban Highway Needs: A second policy question that should be very carefully studied by the Legislature is the question of how limited public funds avcdlable for highway transportation can be best utilized in developing the kind of highway system that will be needed for servicing urban areas. During this biennium as we have studied urban transportation problems, we became extremely familiar with the various brands of criticism of highway and other transportation projects. Much of it does not deal directly with the highway facility itself, but rather with the many broad and complex problems associated with urbanization processes. Basically, they involve the difficult questions of local and regional land use planning and the social goals on which such plans must be based. Counties and smaller municipalities often do not have adequate land use development, subdivision, and other controls to regulate for their benefit the increased commercial, industrial and home building activities generated by Highways. All too often, before affected governmental jurisdictions can ade quately imderstand and respond to this new type of development in their community in terms of adoption of land use plans and related ordinances, the damage is already irreparable. Local government should be able to have a strong voice in protecting their areas from the undesirable forms of urban development which can, but not necessarily must, follow freeway development. Similarly, the highway user should be able to have a voice in protecting the highway facility from the crowding that results from the proliferation of large new traffic generators immediately adjacent to highways.

[43] The highway and the community should not, under the best conditions, be viewed as opponents. Most persons are users of both and the attributes of each can and must be balanced. Adequate controls should be established in potentially urban areas, to protect both communities and highways. What is needed, in our judgement, is a critical analysis of whether or not some statutory changes might not be needed to insure that highway facilities in the future will be constructed and improved for as resonable a cost as possible. It is a fact of economic life that costs for right of way, construction, and maintenance of highways is increasing greatly every year. We recommend that the Urban Arterial Board examine in detail methods by which the costs borne by the public for these facilities might be reduced. Perhaps more flexibility should be allowed to highway agencies to purchase right-of-way in anticipation of future needs. There have been efforts in other states to design highways in conjunction with other public needs for recrea tion, open space, and scenic easements. Recent indications from the U. S. Department of Transportation demonstrate the interest such concepts have generated throughout the country, and we think that the Urban Arterial Board, with the experience its members have gained through addressing problems of financing urban highways and having seen the problems created by planning that has not been sufficiently far-sighted, would be in a very good position to develop specific recommendations for the 1973 Legislature. A second fact that the members of the Subcommittee have had to address is the problem of whether or not to recommend that a major highway corridor between Auburn and Bothell be added to the state highway system. The Joint Committee on Highways retained the firm of Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall to conduct this study, and one of the principal aims of this study was to involve citizen participation to the fullest possible extent (Sect. 57, Chapter 281, Laws of 1969, First Ex. Sess.). The consultants have recommended that such an addition to the state system from Auburn to Bothell is not justified at the present time. Their conclusions are drawn from an exhaustive study of the social, environmental, physical and economic considerations that had to be assessed in determining whether or not such a facility is needed. The mandate to the consultants involved an analysis of the need for such a facility in light of existing policies. Some examination of these policies and their adequacy in preserving the kind of environmental quality of life the public is demanding should be made, and we recommend that such an analysis also be addressed by the members of the Urban Arterial Board. The problems of urban transportation are problems that affect each of us in his daily life, and they are inseparably bound up with many other problems affecting urban life. They are not easy problems to solve, and the members of the Subcommittee are the first to admit that we have only scratched the surface. But from the information and experience we have gained this biennium, the major areas of inquiry seem to resolve themselves into these two general areas, namely, the problem of the balance between the public and private modes of transportation, and the analysis of long-range highway policy to bring about the most satisfactory allocation of our limited transportation resources.

[44] SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUGET SOUND TRANSPORTATION AND TOLL FACILITIES Senator Gordon Walgren, Chairman Puget Island-Westport, Ore., Ferry This mandate directed that the question of acquisition of the properties and facilities of the Puget Island-Westport, Ore., ferry system, now owned by Wahkiakum County, be studied. At the present time, the State Highway Commission, as directed by the 1969 Highways Omnibus Bill, expends $1,000 a month for maintenance of the ferry. In effect, the ferry is an extension of SR 409, the connecting route from Puget Island to the Wahkiakum County mainland. The county contributes a subsidy toward the ferry operation which amounted to $8,940.75 in 1969. The Department of Highways recommends that the ferry tolls be revised upward, especially as related to the schedule for commuter tickets to compensate for this deficit. The department's investi gations showed that the commuter traffic contributes a disproportionately small percentage of the total ferry revenue. In recommending that the ownership of the ferry be retained by Wah kiakum County, the department stated that after the toll schedule reevalua- tion had been accomplished another look should be taken at its operation. At that time, the department would give favorable consideration to an increase in the state's subsidy commensurate with the ratio of commuter or local traffic volumes to the commuter or local traffic revenues, as related to the non-local or state interest traffic and revenues.

Columbia River Bridge North of Richland This study was a reevaluation of the analysis made the previous interim period of a proposed Columbia River bridge north of Richland. In the mandate from the Legislature, the re-study was to take into consideration the construction of the bridge as a toll facility. The bridge and approach system investigated begins at SR 240 near north Richland and ends on Interstate 182 (SR 182) near Pasco. Its estimated cost is $13,578,000 to construct. Of this amount, $9,179,000 is the estimated cost of the bridge structure, which was used as a basis for the amount of bond sales required in the financial feasibility analysis. It was assumed that the remaining $4,399,000 for financing the construction of the approach roads would come from other sources. At the optimum toll charge level of $1.00, the facility does not produce sufficient revenue to be self sustaining, nor to meet minimum bond security requirements. The principal reason for the toll revenue deficiency is the diversion of traffic to the proposed 1-182 crossing of the Columbia River, a toll-free facility approximately five miles south of the location north of Richland. The new 1-182 crossing and the existing Pasco-Kennewick bridge, for which local bond issues for reconstruction have been approved by the voters, will have sufficient capacity to satisfy traffic demands for some 20 years. The subcommittee recommends that a bridge north of Richland be recon sidered after the 1-182 facility is open to traffic. By that time, the impact on traffic of a proposed nuclear power generation facility at the Hanford project also should be included in any re-evaluation of a bridge north of Richland across the Columbia.

[45] Proposed Ferry, Westport to Brown's Point In response to resolutions presented to the 1969 Legislature, the Joint Committee on Highways and the Highway Commission were directed to make a feasibility study of a proposed ferry crossing from Westport to Brown's Point, across the mouth of Grays Harbor. The purpose of this feasibility study was to determine if local agencies, such as the Board of Grays Harbor Commissioners, the Port of Grays Harbor, other local municipalities and communities and local organizations and asso ciations could undertake the construction of approach roads, terminal facili ties and the operation of a ferry for the transportation of foot passengers, and/or motor vehicles across the proposed route. An analysis was made of three types of ferry operation. Traffic analysis, based on a 1969 origin and destination study of Grays Harbor vicinity, showed approximately 150 vehicles per day (1968) and 350 vehicles per day (1990) could be expected, assuming ferry operation during the sununer recreational season only. Summer seasonal volumes of 300 VPD in 1968 and 650 VPD in 1990 could be assumed on any specific day or weekend, but that they also could decrease by as much as 50 per cent or more depending upon the tolls charged and the ferry schedule maintained. The alternative to the ferry route is a 45-mile trip by highway via Aberdeen. At a cost of $1.50 per auto and driver, and a time value of three cents per minute and five cents for vehicle operating costs, per mile, a saving of $1.05 at an average speed of 40 mph, or $1.27 at 45 mph, could be made by taking the ferry. On the basis of a 65-car ferry to provide service for the projected 1990 traffic on a 365-day per year schedule, the first alternative indicated an annual deficit of $500,000. This is based on a 65-car ferry costing $3,250,000 and two terminals at $200,000 each. Since traffic on the proposed facility would be seasonal in nature, with a rather high summer peak-day factor, the other two alternatives were based on a 40-car ferry, providing 365-day service, and the same ferry providing service only during the three summer months. These alternatives resulted in annual deficits of $450,000 and $150,000, i*espectiv€ly. A hearing conducted at Westport on October 19, 1970, indicated continued local interest in a more current study of traffic projections in the area than the 1968 figures used by the department in its analysis. Local people indi cated a considerable increase in tourist and recreational travel in the area since that time, and asked that a re-study be made. It is the recommendation of the subcommittee, therefor, that an item of at least $20,000 be included in the 1971 Highways Omnibus Bill, directing that the department and the toll facilities division make specific traffic studies during the 1971 tourist season and re-evaluate its prior report. At the same time, the views of the Board of Grays Harbor Commissioners, the Port of Grays Harbor and other local government agencies shotdd be solicited for their participation in construction of roadways, terminal facilities and the furnishing of a ferry for the proposed service. In other areas, the subcommittee conducted hearings on food service facilities aboard Washington State Ferries. Jind the application of hydrofoil

[46] and hovercraft ^sterns to Puget Sound transportation requirements. The subcommittee and the Joint Committee on Highways have completed excel lent studies on the possibility of the utilization of these modem techniques on Puget Soimd and retains an active interest in this subject.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MOTOR VEmCLE ADMINISTRATION Senator Brian J. Lewis, Chairman The subcommittee has held several hearings on the subject of excessive noise caused by motor vehicles traveling the highways of the state. We found that although several local units of government have attempted to solve the problem in their own localities, there has been no concerted effort at the state level to set standards that would be effective throu^out the state. Our initial findings have shown that the two states that have taken most effective action in this area are New York and California. California has recently enacted standards that seem reasonably adequate to satisfy the immediate legitimate need of its citizens for freedom from excessive irrita tion caused by the noise of the traffic flow as well as occasional but extra- ordinaiT traffic noises. The standards are also within the present or imminently available technology of the art to meet. New York's statutes are substantially the same as California'.*). Both states have established 88 decibels as the upper limit of their ac ceptable noise level for vehicles traveling at less than 35 m.p.h. Ninety deci bels is considered to be the threshold above which hearing damage can occur. If a vehicle travels at more than 35 m.p.h., a decibel level of 90 dbA is tolerated. Although there was considerable discussion at our meetings among the technical experts who appeared as to the appropriateness of using the "A" scale for measuring the noise level, it seemed to the subcommittee to be an adequate method of measurement and has been used in both New York and California with some success. A second method of measuring noise levels, the "C" scale, measures not so much the noise level as the irritability leveL The "A" Scale measure was chosen because of the general availability of devices for measuring noise levels on this scale. What we have attempted to do in the bill being submitted to the 1971 Legislature is to adopt the standards presently in force in California. We have also gone one step further by requiring that after July 1, 1975, the manufacturers must produce engines which generate a noise level lower by two decibels than those required by 1963. This will serve to advise the manufacturing industry of this requirement and allows sufficient lead time to insure compliance. We have been advised by representatives of several truck manufacturers that such levels will be available by the time called for in the bill. In view of the technical nature of this law the bill requires the State Patrol to issue rules and regulations on the specific methods by which these noise levels would be measured as well as the manner in which enforcement procedures would be carried out. These rules and regulations would, of course, be developed in accord with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. The second bill we are submitting for the consideration of the 1971 Leg islature is a bill restricting the use that can be made of information gathered

[47] by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Currently the Director of the Depart ment of Motor Vehicles can produce information on types of car, models, ownership, and other information available to firms which purchase this information on a national scale. Although there are certain beneficial effects that derive from the availability of such information, the subcommittee has studied the effect of such procedures with a view to determining what pos sible loss of confidence in public institutions derives from these practices. We have determined that there is a rather serious effect on the public's respect for the confidential nature of this information if it is made available to firms which in turn sell it to automobile manufacturers and other groups. We think the point at issue is one that will continue to generate con siderable discussion in the years ahead, i.e., the right of people to as much privacy as can be maintained in a complex, highly technological society. There are complaints from the public that much of the information gathered by official agencies in the performance of their responsibilities finds it way into the hands of companies and individuals who use these lists for direct mail advertising and add to the mass of junk mail that plagues the average household. In order to insure that the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles are not used in this way, the bill we are submitting specifies clearly the purposes for which information gathered by the Department can be used, and explicitly outlaws the use of the information for direct mail advertising. We therefore urge the Legislature to consider these bills very carefully, and enact them into law.

8. Resolutions Adopted by the Joint Committee on Highways During the 1969-1971 Biennium

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS RESOLUTION NO. 69-71:1 Whereas, Section 68, chapter 145, Laws of 1967 extraordinary session, in accordance with the general terms of chapter 111, Laws of 1947, "recreated" the joint committee on highways with powers to study policies relating to the administration, operation, construction, and maintenance of public transpor tation facilities of the state and to ascertain the need for and cost of bringing these facilities to acceptable standards and to maintain them in such condi tion, to meet the transportation demands implicit in the state's economic growth, and Whereas, Increasing emphasis on studies is indicated if the legislature is to fulfill its mandate. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, By the joint committee on highways, that, to accomplish the assigned objectives, the following organizational structure be adopted: I. Executive Committee There is hereby created an executive committee of the joint committee to be composed of the joint committee chairman, the vice chairman, the secre tary, and six members. Duties of the executive committee shall include authorization of expenditures within the research allocations by the joint committee on highways and the highway commission; establishment of hiring policies and salaries of committee employees and staff; negotiation and recommendation of study contracts to the whole committee.

[48] II. Subcommittees The following subcommittees of the joint committee on highways are hereby established: Agriculture; Appropriations & Budget; Coimty-City Administration; Ex tensions; Federal Programs; Finance & Industrial Development; Highways Administration; Motor Vehicle Administration; Motor Vehicle Standards; Safety; State Patrol Administration; Planning; Urban Transportation; and Water Transportation & Toll Facilities. Appointments to the subcommittees shall be made by the joint committee chairman. The chairman shall designate a subcommittee chairman from the subcommittee membership. The subcommittees shall hold regular meetings, presided over by their respective chairman, to conduct studies and evaluate all assignments made to them by the joint committee chairman and make regular progress reports, which shall be submitted to the joint committee chairman after each meeting. In addition the various subcommittees shall recommend to the joint commit tee chairman whatevei* additional areas of study they determine necessary to fulfill their responsibilities. III. Full Committee Meetings of the full committee shall be called by the joint committee chairman and said committee shall be responsible for final reports and recommendations to be made to the legislature. As provided by statute, the committee consists of eleven senators ap pointed by the president of the Senate and twelve members of the House of Representatives appointed by the speaker thereof. All committee members may take part in meetings of any of the subcom mittees, although they may vote only as a member of their assigned subcom mittee. Members to appear in behalf of the committee at conference, convention, or other related meetings shall be designated by the joint committee chair man. Adopted this 11th day of July, 1969. Al Henry, Chairman, C. W. Beck, Secretary.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS

RESOLUTION NO. 69-71:2 Whereas, ROW 46.16.061 provides for certain vehicle license fees to be used by the Joint Committee on Highways and the Washington State High way Commission to help defray the other costs of special highway studies; and Whereas, section 1, chapter 278, Laws of 1969, extraordinary session, appropriated said funds for research and studies approved by the Joint Committee on Highways and the Washington State Highway Commission; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved Jointly by the Joint Committee on Highways and the Washington State Highway Commission: 1. The sum of $127,000 is hereby allocated to the Washington State Highway Commission to be used to perform the following studies:

[49] Chapter 281 Laws of 1969 (Ex. Sess.)

Sec. Subsec. Study Description

1 (1) Kenmore to Swamp Creek 1 (2) Pt. EUice to Skamokawa 1 (3) Acquisition Puget Island Ferry 1 (4) SR 525, Broadway Interchange to Snohomish 4 Comprehensive Study, Tacoma to Seattle 13 SR 99, Tacoma to Marysville 15 Transportation Study, Southern Snohomish and Northern King Counties 16 (1) Pedestrian crossings, SR 12 in Kennewick 16 (2) Pedestrian crossings, vicinity SR 5 and Roanoke 16 (3) Pedestrian crossings, SR 5 and 4th Street in Elaine 16 (4) SR 99 (Alter.), Bellingham to SR 544 16 (5) SR 90 Eastbound exit vicinity George 16 (6) SR 109, Hoquiam to Ocean City 2. The balance of all study funds derived during the 1969-1971 biennium from additional vehicle license fees imposed by ROW 46.16.061 is hereby allocated to the Joint Committee on Highways to be used to carry out the provisions of sections 1, 4, 13, 15, 16 and 37, chapter 281, Laws of 1969, extraordinary session, and for such further studies as the committee shall direct and for other necessary expenses of the committee. Dated this 11th day of July, 1969. Al Henry, Chairman, C. W.Beck, Secretary.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS RESOLUTION NO. 69-71:3 Whereas, The 1969 session of the Washington State Legislature considered and acted on several proposals relative to the transportation of people and goods in the Puget Sound metropolitan area; and Whereas, The decisions of the legislature affecting transportation in the Puget Sound metropolitan area within the next decade will have a significant effect on the social, economic and recreational life of the entire state of Washington; and Whereas, The Washington State Legislature has mandated the Joint Com mittee on Highways to provide information and submit recommendations for its consideration as well as to coordinate the activities of the several agencies involved in implementing transportation policies in this area; and Whereas, The cooperation and exchange of information among these agen cies is of critical importance in the implementation of a transportation system that is efficient, economical, and fully responsive to the needs of the people of the state of Washington, and particularly of the Puget Sound area. Now Therefore, Be It Resolved, That the Joint Committee on Highways does hereby establish a Subcommittee on Urban Transportation to study and periodically report to the parent committee its findings as to the legislative

[50] action required to facilitate the solution of transportation problems of the Puget Sound metropolitan area; and That the Subcommittee on Urban Transportation shall, with the assistance of those local, regional and state agencies entrusted with specific duties in the field of urban transportation, conduct such public hearings and pursue such inquiries as may be required to fulfill the responsibilities imposed by this resolution; and That by this resolution the Joint Committee on Highways solicits the co operation of every agency involved in urban transportation to the end that solutions to the serious transportation problems of the Puget Sound area may be efficiently and responsibly developed; and That copies of this resolution shall be forwarded to the Governor of the State of Washington, the Mayor of the City of Seattle, the King Coimty Executive, the Puget Sound Governmental Conference, the Washington State Highway Commission, the Planning and Community Affairs Agency, the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, the Utilities and Transportation Com mission, Forward Thrust, and to all chief executives of the several munici palities of the Puget Soimd area. Dated this 11th day of July, 1969. Al Henry, Chairman, C. W. Beck, Secretary.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS RESOLUTION NO. 69-71:4 Whereas, The Joint Committee on Highways has been entrusted with the responsibility of expediting the solution of transportation problems resulting from the increased population and economic growth of the state of Washing ton; and Whereas, The implementation of transportation policies necessitates the continual cooperation of every agency involved in the development and improvement of transportation facilities throughout the state of Washington; and Whereas, Agreements by which responsibilities are divided among the various agencies should be entered into in order to clarify responsibility and expedite the solution of the transportation problems, especially in the urban areas of the state. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, That the Washington State Highway Commission is hereby requested to secure a clear definition and division of responsibility and to express the same in a mutual memorandum of under standing whenever another transportation or planning agency within the state has or expresses an interest in transportation or planning problems affecting the Washington State Highway system, and copies of these memo randa shall be provided to the Joint Committee on Highways. Dated this 11th day of September, 1969. Al Henry, Chairman, C. W. Beck, Secretary.

£51] JOINT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS RESOLUTION NO. 69-71:5 (Resolution held in abeyance, pending action by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, as prescribed by Chapter 281, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess.)

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS

RESOLUTION NO. 69-71:6 Whereas, The Joint Committee on Highways has been directed by the 1969 Legislature to conduct a "continuation of the 1967-1969 state highway transportation study which shall include state-wide hearings relative to classification, needs and financing of state highways, county roads and city streets"; and Whereas, The implementation of the recommendations presented by the consultants, Allinson, Inc., and Price Waterhouse & Co., in their reports to the Joint Committee on Highways will require the development of maps and reports for each of the counties of the state and for each of the cities over 2,000 population, as well as reports to every city under 2,000 population; and Whereas, The Joint Committee on Highways requires the continuation of the services rendered by these consultants, as well as their assistance in conducting the public hearings required by the mandate from the 1969 Legislature; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, By the Joint Committee on Highways that the Chairman be authorized to enter into an agreement with the consultants named above to accomplish the objectives recited herein. Be It Further Resolved, That the services to be rendered as stated herein shall not exceed the sum of $120,000. Dated this 11th day of September, 1969. Al Henry, Chairman, C. W. Beck, Secretary.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS RESOLUTION NO. 69-71:7 Whereas, On September 30, 1969, our friend and valued advisor Squeege, will retire from service with the Department of Highways; and Whereas, His work with the department beginning in 1945 and especially with the establishment of the Joint Fact-Finding Committee on Roads, Streets and Bridges, has been characterized by the highest professional attributes; and Whereas, Squeege Glaze for more than 20 years has been the source of detailed information and legislative assistance to all members of the Legisla ture on highway matters, such expertise having been furnished on a non- partisan basis that is deeply appreciated; and Whereas, Squeege Glaze through his dedicated work has made major contributions to the development of the highway system of the State of Washington,

[52] Now, Therefore Be It Resolved That, The Legislative Joint Committee on Highways, on behalf of its members and its predecessor committees, adopt this resolution commending C. K. (Squeege) Glaze for his years of service as highway planning engineer and advisor to the Legislature and all its mem bers. Be It Further Resolved That, With this resolution the members of the Joint Committee on Highways wish Squeege Glaze many active years ahead, with the hope that this will include his continuing contributions to the development of the highways of the State of Washington. This resolution adopted by the Joint Committee on Highways on the 11th day of September, 1969. Al Henry, Chairman, C. W. Beck, Secretary.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS

RESOLUTION NO. 69-71:8 Whereas, The 1969 Legislature has mandated the joint committee on highways to conduct such hearings and local community meetings as may be required to determine the advisability of adding a route between Auburn and Bothell to the state highway system (Laws of 1969, Ch. 281 Ex. Sess., Sec. 57); and Whereas, The joint committee on highways wishes to obtain the assist ance of an independent consultant to determine the scope of work required to fulfill the mandate imposed by the 1969 legislature; and Whereas, An appropriation has been made by the 1969 legislature to the joint committee on highways to study this route; Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, That the chairman of the joint committee on highways be authorized to enter into an agreement with an independent consultant to develop a preliminary scope of work for the joint committee which would define what elements should be included in an examination of these problems; and Be It Further Resolved, That the study described herein shall be per formed for not more than $15,000. Adopted this 16th day of October, 1969. Al Henry, Chairman, C. W. Beck, Secretary.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS RESOLUTION NO. 69-71:9 By Senators Al Henry, Nat Washington, John T. McCutcheon, Lowell Peter son, Hubert F. Donohue, Gordon L. Walgren, Sam C. Guess, Elmer C. Huntley, Brian J. Lewis, Bob McDougall, Richard G. Marquardt, and Representatives C. W. (Red) Beck, Horace Bozarth, Paul H. Conner, Robert A. Perry, Otto Amen, Duane L. Berentson, Norwood Cunningham, Vaughn Hubbard, William S. Leckenby, Al Leland and F. Pat Wana- maker. Whereas, Subsequent to his election as Mayor of the City of Renton, Representative Avery Garrett resigned as a member of the House of Repre sentatives on December 1, 1969; and

[53] Whereas, In culmination of a decade of service in the Legislature, Repre sentative Garrett was named on the Joint Committee on Highways, where he served with distinction; and Whereas, As chairman of the Subcommittee on Industrial Development, Representative Garrett contributed greatly in assessing the impact of new industry on highway needs to serve such developing areas of the state; Now, Therefore Be It Resolved That, With this resolution the members of the Joint Committee on Highways express their appreciation to Representa tive Garrett for his service in the Legislature and to this committee, and wish tiim success in his new elective oflBce of Mayor of the City of Renton and further opportunity to contribute to the service in public life to which he has been dedicated. Adapted this 12th day of February, 1970. Al Henry, Chairman, C. W. Beck, Secretary.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWATS RESOLUTION NO. 69-71:10

Whereas, RCW 46.68.120 provides that the State Highway Commission and the Joint Committee on Highways every four years shall reexamine the factors upon which the estimated annual costs per trunk mile for the several counties have been based, for the purposes of allocating the counties' share of motor vehicle fuel taxes; and Whereas, The State Highway Commission and the Joint Committee on Highways pursuant to statutory authorization have retained AUinson, Inc. and Price Waterhouse & Co., to conduct a major study relating to the financing of county roads (as well as state highways and city streets) which is stiU. in progress and will provide the data necessary for the allocation of fuel tax revenues to the counties, and Whereas, The Joint Committee on Highways and the State Highway Commission have jointly determined that pending the completion of the said study by AUinson, Inc. and Price Waterhouse & Co., the table of estimated annual costs per trunk mUe to be used in aUocating the coimties' share of motor vehicle fuel taxes shaU remain imchanged from that jointly established and set forth in Resolution No. 1807 of the Washington State Highway Commission. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, By the Joint Committee on Highways of the Washington State Legislature, in concurrence with the Washington State Highway Commission, that the estimated annual costs per trunk mile for the counties of Washington for the purposes of aUocating the counties' share of motor vehicle fuel taxes are estabUshed as those heretofore jointly found and adjusted by concurrent action of the Joint Committee on Highways and the Washington State Highway Commission and set forth in Exhibit A of Com mission Resolution No. 1807, dated February 20, 1967. Adopted this 12th day of February, 1970. Aii Henry, Chairman, C. W.Beck, Secretary.

[54] WASHINGTON STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1807

Whereas, There are, variances between the annual costs per trunk mile adopted by the Legislature's Joint Committee on Highways and those adopted by the State Highway Commission for the county fuels tax allocation for mula; and Whereas, The Joint Committee on Highways has requested that the Highway Commission adopt the adjustments heretofore approved by the legislative agency; and Whereas, The Commission deems it in the public interest that there be uniformity of action in this matter: Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, That the Washington State Highway Commission does hereby rescind its Resolution No. 1721 dated March 3, 1966; and Be It Further Resolved, That the Commission hereby adjusts the esti mated annual costs per trunk mile for the several coimties as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, said adjustments to be retroactive to March 1, 1966.

Dated this 20th day of February, 1967.

ATTEST:

_Elmer C. Huntley, Chairman, Lorenz Goetz, Secretary,

James M. Blair, Sr.

Harold Walsh

Robert L. Mikalson

George D.Zahn

[55] EXHIBIT "A" County Annual Cost Per Trunk Mile

Adams $2,032 Asotin 3,002 Benton 3,212 Chelan 4,707 Clallam 3,228 Clark 4,247 Columbia 3,129 Cowlitz 3,944 Douglas 3,543 Ferry 5,012 Franklin 2,922 Garfield 2,165 Grant 2,718 Grays Harbor 4,348 Island 2,847 Jefferson 3,945 King 5,659 Kitsap 4,376 Klittitas 2,698 Klickitat 3,839 Lewis 3,109 Lincoln 2,159 Mason 3,889 Okanogan 3,289 Pacific 4,734 Pend Oreille 3,650 Pierce 4,535 San Juan 3,529 Skagit 3,787 Skamania 5,217 Snohomish 3,996 Spokane 4,568 Stevens 2,799 Thurston 3,459 Wahkiakum 3,585 Walla Walla 3,484 Whatcom 2,984 Whitman 3,097 Yakima 2,716

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS RESOLUTION NO. 69-71:11

Whereas, The 1969 Washington State Legislature mandated the Joint Committee on Highways to "conduct public hearings and such informal local community meetings as it deems advisable" relative to determining whether a new state highway route should be added between Auburn and Bothell (Laws of 1969, Chapter 281, Section 57); and

[56] Whereas, The 1969 Legislature appropriated the sum of $200,000 for the implementation of this study, and allowed the Joint Committee on Highways discretion to "retain a design team of experts from several disciplines concerned with aesthetic and social aspects in the location and design of the proposed highway"; and Whereas, The Joint Committee on Highways, through Resolution 1969- 71:8, dated October 16, 1969, authorized a preliminary study to be developed by an independent consultant to outline the specific problems to be addressed and procedures to be followed in the execution of this mandate, which preliminary study has been submitted by the consultant, Daniel, Maim, Johnson and Mendenhall of Los Angeles, to the Joint Committee on High ways and reviewed in detail by the Subcommittee on Urban Transportation. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, That the Executive Committee of the Joint Committee on Highways does hereby authorize the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Highways to enter into an agreement with Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall of Los Angeles to complete the Phase II proposal as outlined in the report Auburn-Bothell Highway Study: Phase I—Study De sign* 1970, and further authorizes the Chairman to obligate such imexpended portion of the appropriation made in Section 57, Chapter 281, Laws of 1969, as necessary for the completion of this task; And Be It Further Resolved, That the Counsel for the Joint Committee on Highways is hereby directed to draw up an agreement with the Consultant in a manner consistent with state and federal requirements for contracts of this nature. Adopted this 3rd day of April, 1970, at Seattle, Washington. Al Henry, Chairman, C. W. Beck, Secretary.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS RESOLUTION NO. 69-71:12 Whereas, RCW 46.68.120 provides that the State Highway Commission and the Joint Committee on Highways shall reexamine every four years the factors upon which the estimated annual costs per trunk mile for the several counties have been based, for the purpose of allocating the counties' share of motor vehicle fuel taxes; and Whereas, The Joint Committee on Highways has retained Allinson, Inc., and Price Waterhouse & Co., to assist the committee in determining the most equitable distribution of gas tax revenues not only among the three levels of government, but also among the separate units of government within each level; and Whereas, The Joint Committee on Highways by Resolution 69-71:10, adopted on February 12, 1970, and the Washington State Highway Commis sion have jointly determined that pending the completion of the said study by Allinson, Inc., and Price Waterhouse & Company, the table of annual costs per trunk mile to be used in allocating the counties' share of motor vehicle fuel taxes should remain unchanged from that jointly established and set forth in Exhibit "A" of Resolution No. 1807 of the Washington State Highway Commission so that no substantial variation in gas tax allocation to any coimty would occur; and

[57] Whereas, The statutory adjustment in county gas tax allocation made by the State Aid Division of the Department of Highways using said table of annual costs per trunk mile did in fact produce substantial variation in gas tax allocation caused primarily by unexpected variations in coimty valuation determined by the Department of Revenue; and Whereas, The Washington State Association of Counties has now re quested the Joint Committee on Highways to rescind Resolution 69-71:10 and to adopt a resolution containing a revised table of annual costs per trunk mile which would limit the variation in gas tax allocation to any county to no more than five percent from the distribution as determined by the costs per trunk mile set forth in said Exhibit "A" of Resolution No. 1807. Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved, By The Joint Committee on Highways of the Washington State Legislature, in concurrence with the Washington State Highway Commission, that the annual costs per trunk mile for the counties of Washington for the purposes of allocating the counties' share of motor vehicle fuel taxes are established as those set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Adopted this 18th day of August, 1970. Al Henry, Chairman, C. W.Beck, Secretary.

EXHIBIT "A" County Annual Cost Per Trunk Mile

Adams $2,005 Asotin 2,915 Benton 3,143 Chelan 4,807 Clallam 3,843 Clark 4,181 Columbia 2,930 CowUtz 3,772 Douglas 3,422 Ferry 4,627 Franklin 2,478 Garfield 2,105 Grant 2,503 Grays Harbor 5,143 Island 3,325 Jefferson 4,800 King 5,929 Kitsap 4,291 Kittitas 2,656 Klickitat 3,638 Lewis 4,140 Lincoln 2,314 Mason 4,660 Okanogan 3,217 Pacific 4,750 Fend Oreille 3,563

[58] EXHIBIT "A"—Continued County Annual Cost Per Trunk Mile

Pierce 5,299 San Juan 4,830 Skagit 3,987 Skamania 5,166 Snohomish 4,040 Spokane 4,144 Stevens 2,607 Thurston 3,399 Wahkiakum 3,686 Walla WaUa 3,465 Whatcom 3,575 Whitman 2,992 Yakima 2,911

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS RESOLUTION NO. 69-71:13 Whereas, The Joint Committee on Highways has been mandated by the 1969 Legislature to undertzike a "comprehensive review of existing uniform county road and city street accounting procedures" (Sec. 37 (10), Chapter 281, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess.); and Whereas, The Joint Committee on Highways has already imdertaken to prepare legislation based on the procedures utilized in the 1967-69 state highway transportation study, and has found that the absence of a uniform accounting system for all the highway agencies of the state has posed serious problems in implementing the recommendations of the 1967-69 state highway transportation study; and Whereas, The Joint Committee on Highways has requested the assistance of the State Auditor in developing the uniform accounting procedures that will be needed before an equitable distribution of the motor vehicle fuel tax can be made; and Whereas, The State Auditor has presented a proposal to the Joint Com mittee on Highways to undertake this work and has specified that this work can be completed for the cost of $58,000. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, That the Executive Committee of the Joint Committee on Highways Delegates Senator A1 Henry, Chairman, to enter into an agreement with Mr. Robert Graham, State Auditor, and to expend for these purposes described above funds available to the Joint Committee on Highways, but not to exceed $58,000. Dated this 3rd day of September, 1970. Al Henry, Chairman, C. W. Beck, Secretary.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS RESOLUTION NO. 69-71:14 Whereas, On Februaiy 1, 1971, our friend and val;ued advisor, 'Vyill Bachofner will retire from service with the Washington State Patrol; and

[59] Whereas, In 29 years of dedicated service Will Bachofner has distin guished himself in the law enforcement field, from the rank of trooper to that of Chief of the Patrol; and Whereas, Under his direction, the Washington State Patrol has achieved honors and distinction in the nation, while at the same time protecting the lives and safety of the citizens of Washington State or our highways; and Whereas, Chief Bachofner leaves a strong, disciplined public service organization to face the future highway safety challenges before the state. Now, Therefore Be It Resolved That The Legislative Joint Committee On Highways, on behalf of its members and their other colleagues in the Legislature adopt this resolution commending Chief Will Bachofner for his service to the citizens of the state; and Be It Further Resolved That, With this resolution the members of the Joint Committee on Highways wish Will Bachofner many active years ahead and continuing service to the people of the State of Washington. This resolution adopted by the Joint Committee on Highways on the 9th day of January, 1971. Al Henry, Chairman, C. W. Beck, Secretary.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS MEMORIAL 69-71:1

TO THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION OF THE STATE OF WASH INGTON; We, Your Memorialists, members of the Senate and the House of Repre sentatives of the State of Washington, respectfully represent and petition as follows: Whereas, The United States Congress is now considering the federal highway budget for Fiscal Year 1971, which includes, among other items, a sum for the acceleration of bridge repair and construction throughout the nation; and Whereas, The safety of the citizens of Washington State and the traveling public is endangered and the economic vitality of the state's commerce is hindered by the deteriorating condition of nearly 653 bridges on county roads in Washington state which have been rated by the County Road Administra tion Engineer as "inadequate in load carrying capacity or unsafe for legal loads"; and Whereas, The Joint Committee on Highways has the responsibility of making every effort to insure the safety of its citizens on the highways of the state of Washington, as well as to encourage the development of the most effective transportation system possible for the people of the state; and Whereas, The economic condition of the state of Washington has been severely affected in recent years so that unemployment is higher than in most other areas of the nation and the welfare of our citizens is seriously jeopardized; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, That the Joint Committee on Highways respectfully requests that the members of the Congress from Washington State advise the President of the United States and the Secretary of Trans portation of the critical need for improvement of these transportation facili ties as well as the particular economic needs of the citizens of the state of Washington, and that these members of Congress request that whatever available funds have not already been allocated for other purposes be made

[60] available to the counties of the state of Washington as soon as possible for the repair and construction of bridges on county roads which are in need of the most immediate attention; And Be It Further Resolved, That copies of this memorial be immediately transmitted to the members of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives from Washington State. Adopted this 16th day lof September, 1970, at Richland, Washington. Al Henry, Chairman, C. W. Beck, Secretary.

9. List of Publications Prepared for the Committee Since It Was Formed in 1947

List of publications prepared by outside consultants for ttie Joint Commit tee on Highways since it was created in 1947:

1947-1949 1. Highways in Washington's Future. Kennedy, Fritts, McCormack. * 2. Financing Washington's Highways,Roads and Streets. Nelson. 3. Report of the Joint Fact-Finding Committee on Highways, Streets and Bridges. 1949.

1949-1951 4. Taxing Washington's Motor Vehicles Equitably for Highway Serv ices. Nelson. * 5. Statement With Relation to the Nelson Report. Highway Research Council, Inc., of Washington. 6. Report of the Joint Fact-Finding Committee on Highways, Streets and Bridges. 1951.

1951-1953 7. State Interest in Highways. (Volume I) Classification Study. Wash ington State Council for Highway Research. 8. State Interest in Highways. (Volume H) Classification Study. Wash ington State Council for Highway Research. 9. Feasibility of Toll Roads in Washington. State Council for Highway Research. 10. Report of the Joint Fact-Finding Committee on Highways, Streets and Bridges. 1953.

1953-1955 11. County Gas Tax Allocation Study. State Council for Highway Re search. * 12. County Motor Fuel Tax Allocation Study. University of Washington. 13. Financing of the State Department of Licenses and the Washington State Patrol. Walker. * 14. Nature of Highway Benefits. (Prospectus) Washington State Council for Highway Research. 15. Nature of Highway Benefits. Washington State Council for Highway Research. 16. Report of the Joint Fact-Finding Committee on Highways, Streets and Bridges. 1955.

•File copy only [61 ] 1955-1957 17. Sharing the Costs of Road and Streets In Washington. Washington State Council for Highway Research. 17a. Allocation of Road and Street Costs. (WSCHR) Fart I. An Equitable Solution to the Problem. 17b. Allocation of Road and Street Costs. (WSCHR) Part II. Classifica tion, Traffic Volumes & Annual Costs of County Roads and City Streets. 17c. Allocation of Road and Street Costs. (WSCHR) Part III. Bases for Weight-Distance Taxation in the State of Washington. Volume I. Automobile and Taxicabs. 17d. Allocation of Road and Street Costs. (WSCHR) Part III. Bases for Weight-Distance Taxation in the State of Washington. Volume II. Trucks and Busses. 17e. Allocation of Road and Street Costs. (WSCHR) Part IV. The Bene fits of Rxiral Roads to Rural Property. 17f. Allocation of Road and Street Costs.(WSCHR) Part V. The Effect of Freeway Access Upon Suburban Real Property Values. 17g. Allocation of Road and Street Costs.(WSCHR) Part VI. Commercial Motor Carriers as Highway Users in Washington. Volume I. Competitive and Structural Analysis. 17h. Allocation of Road and Street Costs. (WSCHR) Part VI. Commercial Motor Carriers as Highway Users in Washington. Volume II. Volume and Character of Freight Traffic Movements. 17i. Allocation of Road and Street Costs.(WSCHR) Part VI. Commercial Motor Carriers as Highway Users in Washington. Volume III. Factors Relating to Earning Values. 18. Gas Tax Continuation Study. State Council for Highway Research. ** 19. Uniform Accounting System for County Road Departments. 20. Renumbering the State Highway System.(Map). ♦* 21. Special Engineering Studies. (Puget Soimd, Lake Washington, Co- linnbia River and other bridge studies). 22. Reconnaissance Surveys 1957. (1) SSH #3-J Extension Long Lake to Spokane City Limits; (2) SSH #3-H Extension Oakesdale to Jet. PSH #3 vie. Steptoe; (3) PSH #11 to Washtucna and Delaney and Washtucna to Pres- cott; (4) Kelso to Jet. PSH #1 near Vader; (5) SSH #3-B Extension White Swan to Old Fort Simcoe; (6) Jet. PSH #21 vie. Belfair to west boundary Belfair State Park; (7) Arlington to Darrington; (8) Holman Road vie. to Jet. PSH #1; (9) Edmonds to PSH #1 (Proposed Toll Road) East of Lynnwood; (10) Jet. PSH #2 Vic. Bothell to south of Everett; (11) Grays River to Pe Ell. 23. Report of the Joint Fact-Finding Committee on Highways, Shreets and Bridges. 1957.

1957-1959 24. Report of Motor Vehicle Administration in Washington. Brown, University of Washington.

**No copies available. [62] 1957-1959 (continued) 25. Urban Freeway Systems—^Their Development and Financing in Washington State. Horwood, Meese, and Sawhill, UW. 26. City Street Needs—Volume I. Riedesel and Hulseman, Washington State University. 27. County TrafBc Studies. Sibley, WSU. 28. State Pre-emption of Highway User Taxes. Goldberg and Lambright, UW. 29. Monthly Licensing for Seasonally Operated Motor Vehicles in Wash ington. Little and Archer, UW. 30. The Equitable Obligation When Assessed Irrigation District Lands Are Taken for Highway Use. Jensen, Hartman, Brough, Parish, WSU. 31. Report of Financial Feasibility of Proposed Puget Sound Bridge. Porter/Urquhart, McCreary & O'Brien, San Francisco. 32. Supplementary Report on Additional Projects Proposed for Inclusion in the Puget Sound Bridge Program. 33. Disposition of State Highway Affected by Relocation. Riedesel, WSU. 34. Highway Classification—Consideration of Highway Additions or Deletions.(1958) Riedesel and Hulseman, WSU. 35. Exemptions and Diversions from Motor Vehicle Licensing and Taxa tion. Ekse and Myers, UW. 36. Washington State Highways—^Needs Study, Washington State High way Commission. 37. Equitable Alternatives in Highway User Taxation. Hennes and Pol lock, UW. 38. A C^graphic Impact of Highway Improvement. Garrison and Marts. 39. Determination of Special Benefits Resulting From Highway Location. Seyfried. 40. Infiuence of EDghway Improvements on Urban Land. Garrison and Marts. 41. Digest of Recommendations. 42. Reconnaissance Surveys 1958. (1) Amboy to Woodland; ♦(2) Oakesdale to Steptoe; (3) Bremerton via Keyport to Jet. SSH #21-A; (4) New Columbia River Bridge to Pasco via Kennewick; (5) West Boimdary Government Reservation to Glade; ♦ (6) Jet. #21 westerly to Belfair State Park; (7) Jet. PSH #5 via Renton Ave. to JCT.PSH #2 in Seattle; (8) Femwood-Port Orchard-Point Southworth; (9) Lyle to Goldendale via Klickitat; (10a) Three Tree Point^White Center-Renton; (10b) Normandy Park to Hobart; (10c) Midway to Kent; (lOd) Lakota to Palmer; (11) Republic to Wilbur via Columbia River Bridge; (12) Spokane via Spokane River to PSH #22; (13) Malott to Junction PSH #16; (14) Fall City to Preston. 43. Report of Joint Committee on Highways.

•File copy only [63] 1959-1961 44. Washington Street and Highway Need Study. (Five Volumes) Vol. 1, Manual of Information and Instruction. 45. Washington Street and Highway Need Study. Vol. II, Summary and Conclusions. 46. Washington State Highways. Vol. Ill, A Report on Needs of the State Highway System. Washington State Highway Commission. 47. Washington Street and Highway Need Study. Vol. IV, City and County Needs and Finances. 48. Washington Street and Highway Need Study. Vol. V, Improvements in Administration. 49. City Street Needs in Seattle, Spokane and Tacoma. Ekse, Bonow, Colcord, and Yung Ping Chen, UW. 50. Providing for Growing Street Needs in Urban Fringes of Washington Cities. 51. Highway Classification, Consideration of Highway Additions and Deletions (1960). Riedesel and Corser, WSU. 52. Naches Pass Tunnel Report. Bertram H. Lindman and Associates. 53. Proposed Astoria-Megler Bridge. (Lower Columbia River Toll Bridge Report) Lindman. 54. Supplemental Report to the Proposed Astoria-Megler Bridge. 55. Evaluation of Axle Load Limits for Vehicles Conveying Products From the Farm. (Agricultural Products Transportation Study.) George, WSU. 56. Memorandum on Highway Finance. Mund, UW. 57. The Cost of Motor Vehicle Accidents in the State of Washington. Little and Grathwohl, UW. 58. A Review of Certain Aspects of Motor Vehicle Licensing in Wash ington State. Harder and Wagner, UW. 59. Report on Court Reporting of Trafiic Convictions in Washington. Brown and Boore, UW. 60. Digest of Recommendations Received by Interim Committee in Series of Public Hearing Throughout State During 1960. 61. Ports of Entry Coordinating Study. Planning Division, Washington State Highway Commission. 62. Reconnaissance Surveys 1960. (1) Ling to Warden; (2) (No report); (3) Jet. PSH #1 South of Marysville to Jet. SSH #1-A; (4) Packwood to Jet. PSH #5 via Paradise Entrance Rainier National Park; (5) Mead to Mt. Spokane via Peona Creek; (6) Vemita Ferry to Richland via A.E.C. Reservation; (7) Spokane via Spokane River to PSH #22; (8) Lamona to Sprague; (9) Lyle to Goldendale via Klickitat; (10) Trans-Cascade Tunnel PSH #15 at Stevens Pass. 63. Report of Joint Committee on Highways.

1961-1963 64. Priority Programming for Washington—State Highways, County Roads and City Streets. Automotive Safety Foundation.

•File copy only [64] 1961-1963 (continued) 65. Priority Programming- for Washington—^Administrative Guide for City and Town Streets. Automotive Safety Foundation. 66. Priority Programming for Washington—^Administrative Guide for County Roads. Automotive Safety Foimdation. 67. Priority Programming for Washington—^Administrative Guide for State Highways. Automotive Safety Foundation. 68. A Review of Regional Planning Activities in Washington State With Alternative Geographic and Organizational Proposals. Horwood, UW. ** 69. Freeway Development and the Quality of Local Planning. Horwood, UW. ** 70. An Evaluation of Land Use Controls at Freeway Approaches. Hor wood, UW. ** 71. A Study of Congesting Influences at Eastgate Interchange, King County. Horwood, UW. 72. Uniform Cost Records for Washington City Streets. Highway Re search Staff, WSU. 73. Street Construction and Maintenance Through City-County Agree ments. Highway Research Staff, WSU. 74. Highway Classification—Consideration of Highway Additions. High way Research Staff, WSU. 75. 1961 Cost Factor Adjustment for County Gas Tax Fund Allocation. Highway Research Staff, WSU. 76. Regulation of Outdoor Advertising Along the Interstate System. Wagner and Harder, UW. 77. Criteria for the Establishment of Additional Scenic Areas. Wolfe, Norton and Cohn, UW. ** 78. FeasibUity of a Ferry Service Between Camano and Whidbey Is lands. Lewis-Redford-Engineers. ** 79. Feasibility of an Alternate Dairy Ferry Service Between Bellingham and Sidney, B.C. Lewis-Redford-Engineers. 80. Analysis of Ferry and Hood Canal Bridge Traffic and Finances, 1952 to 1975. Lewis-Redford-Engineers. 81. The Case for Driver Education in the High Schools. Brown and Hennes. 82. Reconnaissance Survey Reports by the Washington State Highway Commission 1962. (1) Woodland to Jet. SSH #1-3 via La Center; (2) Toppenish to Granger; (3) Vancouver to Woodland; (4) SSH #1-V Marine Drive vicinity of Redondo; (5) Kirkland to Jet. of PSH #2 west to Factoria; (6) Neah Bay to Hoh River via La Push; *(7) Bellingham to Sidney, B.C. via Orcas Island Ferry; (8) Springdale to Reardan via Long Lake; *(9) Camano Island to Whidbey Island Ferry; (10) East approach Evergreen Point Bridge to PSH #1 (FAI 405) at Midlake; (11) Bainbridge Island to Kitsap Peninsula. 83. Report of Joint Committee on Highways.

•File copy only. ••No copies available. [65] 1963-1965 84. Route Studies. Highway Research Staff, WSU. 85. A Review of the Legislation on Priority Programming for Washing ton Highways. Highway Research Staff, WSU. 86. Legislation for Better Road and Street Administration. Hi^way Research Staff, WSU. 87. Renton Arterials—^A Study of the Highway Planning Process in the State of Washington. Highway Research Staff, WSU. 88. Priority Programming. Washington State Highway Commission. 89. Providing Information in the Interests of Motorists Along Washing ton's Interstate System and Within its Scenic Areas. Wagner and Harder, UW. 90. Recommendations for the Establishment of Additional Scenic Areas. Norton, UW. 91. Toll Financing, Benefit Districts, and the Motor Vehicle Fund. Hennes, UW. 92. Automobile Insurance. Wickman, UW. 93. Report on Reflectorization of License Plates. Brown, UW. 94. Fund Support of the Motor Vehicle Functions. Staff, Joint Commit tee on Highways. 95. State Patrol Manpower Requirements. Staff, Joint Committee on Highways (Mimeo Report). 96. Identifying Interstate Vehicles for the Purpose of Taxation and Regulation. Staff, Joint Committee on Highways (Mimeo Report). 97. Report of Skagit River Bypass Project. Staff, Joint Committee on Highways (Mimeo Report). 98. Reconnaissance Survey Reports by the Washington State Highway Commission: (1) SSH #9A Port Angeles to Neah Bay; (2) PSH #3 Uniontown to Clarkston; (3) Bellevue to Redmond; (4) Mossyrock Reservoir Highway; (5) SSH #2D Kirkland to Redmond.

1965-1967 99. Reconnaissance Survey 1966. , (1) SSH #5-C (SR 515) Extension of SSH #5-C northerly to PSH #1 (SR405) at No. Renton interchange; (2) Jet. PSH #9 (SR 101) at Shelton to Jet. PSH #14 (SR 16) at Purdy; (3) Jet. PSH #1 (SR 99) to Jet. SSH #2-B (SR 104) (76th Avenue West); (4) SSH #5-C (SR 515) Extension of SSH #5-C northerly to PSH #1 (SR 405) at No. Renton Interchange; (5) Jet. PSH #3 (SR 395) to Jet. SSH #3-J (SR 231) VaUey Vicinity; . (6) PSH #3 (SR 410) West of WaUa Walla to PSH #3 (SR 125) South of College Place; (7) PSH #3 (SR 129) Grande Ronde River to Asotin via Rogers- burg; (8) Jet. SSH #1-S (SR 503) in Woodland to Jet. PSH #1 (SR 5) at log diunp interchange.

•File copy only [66] 100. Report of Joint Committee on Highways. 101. 1965 Cost Factor Adjustment for County Gas Tax Fund Allocation. College of Engineering, Research Division, WSU. 102. Washington State Highways Department Program Management— Revenues, Expenditures, Budgeting, Planning, Management. Staff, Joint Committee on Highways. 103. A Comparison of Motor Vehicle Related Taxes and Fees. Staff, Joint Committee on Highways. 104. The Problem of Abandoned Vehicles. Staff, Joint Committee on Highways. 105. Coordina'ion of Transportation Programs in the State of Washington and Planning for Industrial Development—Regional Planning, State- ^vide Planning Management, and Meeiing the Needs of Areas Af fected by Industrial Expansion. Staff, Joint Committee on Highways. 106. Washington State Ferry System. Staff, Joint Committee on High ways. 107. Criteria for Credit Financing and Local Improvement Districts. Hennes and Kurz, UW. 108. State of Washington Highway System—Needs, Programs, and Fi nances. Knoerle, Bender, Stone & Associates, Inc., Consulting Engi

neers. 109. Reconnaissance Survey Reports by the Washington State Highway Commission; Woodland to Jet. SSH No. I-S Via La Center. Toppenish to Granger. Vancouver to Woodland. SSH No. 1-V Marine Drive Vicinity of Redondo. Kirkland to Jet. of PSH No. 2 West to Factoria. Neah Bay to Hoh River Via La Push. Riparia to Lacrosse. Springdale to Reardan Via Long Lake.

I967-I969 110. Report of the Joint Committee on HighAvays, January, 1969. 111. Whidbey Island—Mainland Crossing Study (Preliminary Feasibility Report), Tudor Engineering Co., Consulting Engineers (December, 1968). 112. Better Highways for Washington; A Plan for Equitable Financing for all Roads and Streets, Price, Waterhouse and Co. (February, 1969). 113. Better Highways for Washington; Needs by Classified Urban and Rural Systems, an Engineering Evaluation. Allinson, Inc. (February, 1939). 114. Lake Washington Bridge Crossings; Parallel Evergreen Point Bridge, North Lake Bridge. Tudor Engineering Co., Consulting Engineers (December, 1968). 115. Fast Ferries for the State of Washington. Hoverprojects, Ltd. (Jan uary, 1969). 116. Motor Fuel Allocation Among Counties—^Analysis and Recommenda tions. Price, Waterhouse and Co.(January, 1969). 117. Modern Highway Laws for Washington. John J. O'Connell, Attorney General (January, 1969).

[67] 1967-1969 (continued) 118. Kitsap Peninsula—Bainbridge Island Connector Bridge Routes; an Economic Evaluation. Washington State Department of Highways (January, 1969). 119. Eastside Freeway, Ken R. White, Consulting Engineers (1968). 120. How Industrial Decentralization could affect Washington State High way costs and how plant location fac.ors affect suppliers to the Aerospace, Chemical, Electronics and Supply Service Industries, Bat- telle Memorial Institute. 121. Construction and Maintenance Contracts—Size Distribution, Pre- qualified bids, Geographic Distribution of Contractors, Maintenance Contract Experience, Staff (Fricke), Joint Committee on Highways. 122. A Comprehensive Review of Highway Personnel policies and proce dures emphasizing the Clarification of Responsibilities between the Department of Highways and the Highway Personnel Board, Staff (Fricke), Joint Committee on Highways. 123. Reciprocity and Weights—^Interstate Exchange of Audit Information, Staff (Fricke), Joint Committee on Highways. 124. Washington State Highway Department Program Management—^De velopment of Maintenance Performance Standards, Utilization of Performance Standards in Highway Budgeting, Staff (Rolfson), Joint Committee on Highways. 125. Report on Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings, Staff (Whalen), Joint Committee on Highways.

[68]