Three scenarios were selected for evaluation:
- Preferred by the public during engagement: Adequately fund preservation and maintenance and split all remaining funds between safety and efficiency programs and highway expansion projects at a 2:1 ratio.
- Stronger shift to safety and efficiency: Adequately fund preservation and maintenance and split all remaining funds between safety and efficiency programs and highway expansion projects at a 5:1 ratio.
- Complete shift to safety and efficiency: Adequately fund preservation and maintenance, using all remaining funds to improve safety and efficiency through various strategies and programs.
What are safety and efficiency programs?
A variety of programs and strategies that improve the highway system beyond the highways themselves. Here are some examples:
- Safety – projects that reduce and prevent crashes for all roadway users like cable barrier or rumble strips.
- Environment – fish barrier removal, stormwater and vegetation management, erosion control, and noise reduction walls.
- Operations – signage, lights, and markings, incident response, travel information, and traffic management centers.
- Public Transportation – transit services and centers, commute trip reduction programs, park and ride lots.
- Active Transportation – support and improvements for people who walk, bicycle, and roll.
Evaluation criteria
The three scenarios were evaluated based on how well they could help achieve the Statewide Transportation Policy Goals (RCW 47.04.280). Although the program areas themselves are distinct, they often support multiple policy goals. For example, while preservation and maintenance programs directly serve the “preservation” policy goal, they also support all other state policy goals: safety, stewardship, mobility, economic vitality and environment.
