Fact check: Critics say Initiative 2117 would cut transportation funding

(The Center Square) - A new report published by Greenline Insights, along with proponents of the Climate Commitment Act, claims that if Initiative 2117 is approved by voters and repeals the law, it would deprive the state of state revenue by $3.9 billion through 2029.

If that happened, the study warned it would "eliminate investments into public transit, pedestrian safety, ferry electrification, air quality, renewable energy, grid modernization, ecosystem resilience, forest health and fire prevention, salmon habitats, and more."

According to a press release statement citing the study’s conclusions, the No 2117 campaign argued the initiative “would cut billions in investments in transportation - slashing transit and putting road and bridge projects at risk.”

The transportation projects funded through the CCA include efforts to electrify the state’s ferry fleet, the largest of any state in the country, in addition to electrifying the state’s transportation sector. Roughly 84% of all funding for zero emission vehicle investments come from the CCA, while more than $100 million of planned spending has been put on hold pending the November election outcome.

Among the projects the study cites as being funded by CCA include:

• Bike and pedestrian paths, bridges, trails, and bike racks
• Complete streets and road safety improvements
• Education programs
• Active transportation incentive

However, CCA revenue is restricted in what kind of transportation projects it can go toward. As noted in the Greenlight Institute study, "by law, state (CCA) proceeds must be invested to reduce climate and air pollution, create jobs, and help communities in Washington state respond to climate change." 

According to Ecology’s webpage regarding the CCA, spending must be invested in projects focused on the following:

• improving clean transportation options
• increasing climate resilience in ecosystems and communities
• addressing issues of environmental justice and health inequity in Washington.

A year ago, Gov. Jay Inslee’s Communications Manager Mike Faulk wrote to The Center Square that “state law is very clear about allowable uses of CCA funding, and maintenance and preservation are not an appropriate use. It does allow for other significant transportation investments that we are already making that have direct climate and decarbonization benefits.”

Although the state is spending more than ever in its transportation budget, there is a $900 million anticipated shortfall by the 2027-29 biennium; much of that shortfall is due to lower than expected federal grant funding for Move Ahead Washington projects. Meanwhile, WSDOT officials have recently described the state highway system to be in “early stages of failure” due to a lack of maintenance and preservation funding, which a variety of officials including Inslee have blamed on legislative prioritization of new projects over existing infrastructure. 

Maintenance and preservation is funded through a variety of other revenue sources including the state gas tax, which by constitutional mandate can only be spent on state highways and makes up $3.36 billion or 23% of the $14.4 billion in revenue for the 2024 supplemental transportation budget. Of that $14.5 billion, WSDOT highway improvements compose $4.84 billion or 33% of spending, while $1.01 billion or 7% will be invested in highway maintenance, which is separate from preservation.

Projects included in the 2015 Connecting Washington transportation package are paid for through a $.15 per gallon increase to the state gas tax, while the 16-year Move Ahead Washington transportation package is funded through CCA revenue and bonding and primarily focused on public transit projects.

Already, $46 million has been spent under the latest package through the Transit Support Grant, while $188 million total has been appropriate for it. According to the grant program’s webpage, applicants must “to the extent practicable, align implementation of youth zero-fare policies with equity and environmental justice principles consistent with recommendations from the environmental justice council, and ensure low-barrier accessibility of the program to all youth.”

Under the CCA, the Environmental Justice Council make recommendations to the Legislature on how auction revenue should be used. Agencies that use CCA money must report their progress toward achieving environmental justice goals to the council.