This bill amends existing law (RCW 47.06.040 and RCW 47.06.050) to impose more detailed, recurring planning and reporting requirements on the Department of Transportation. It requires the Department to develop a statewide multimodal transportation plan every three years under RCW 47.01.071(4). The plan must have two components — a state-owned facilities component (the state highway system plan, the state ferry system plan, and the state bridge preservation plan) and a state-interest component (defining state interest in aviation, marine ports and navigation, freight rail, intercity passenger rail, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and public transportation). The plans must be consistent with the state transportation policy plan and with regional, high-capacity, and local comprehensive plans, reflect public involvement, and emphasize congestion relief, preservation of existing investments, accommodating planned growth, safety, freight movement, and multimodal integration. The bill adds procedural requirements and defined plan elements. It requires the Department to identify and document potentially affected environmental resources (for example wetlands, stormwater runoff, flooding, air quality, fish passage, and wildlife habitat) and to coordinate that identification and documentation with relevant environmental regulatory authorities, which must be given an opportunity to review and comment. That environmental identification is expressly not intended to create a private right of action or to require an environmental impact statement under chapter 43.21C RCW. Beginning January 1, 2027, each statewide multimodal transportation plan must include and transmit to the Legislature’s transportation committees and the Office of Financial Management a report that notifies of plan completion and prior plan date, identifies which parts of the report fulfill each statutory requirement and explains any unmet requirements, and updates progress toward objectives in the state bridge preservation plan. The bill also specifies required plan elements such as system preservation (using lowest life-cycle cost methods), a highway maintenance element with a 20-year cost estimate, capacity and operational improvement elements, scenic and recreational highways, and paths and trails, and states that these elements serve as the basis for the six-year highway program and the biennial budget request. The Department, legislative transportation committees, the Office of Financial Management, relevant environmental regulatory authorities (including local governments), counties, cities and towns, regional transportation planning organizations, the Utilities and Transportation Commission (for private ferries), ferry advisory committees, and other state and federal agencies are identified as affected entities. The extracted text references other statutes (for example RCW 47.01.071(4), RCW 47.01.300, RCW 47.06.050(3), chapters 47.80, 47.30, 36.70A, and 43.21C) but does not include their contents; requirements that rely on those external provisions or the full amended statutory language cannot be fully understood from the provided excerpts.

If enacted, the Department of Transportation will need to produce a detailed, two-part statewide multimodal transportation plan every three years and, beginning January 1, 2027, add a formal report to the Legislature and Office of Financial Management that says when the plan was completed, which statutory items it meets or doesn’t, and how the state bridge preservation goals are progressing. That will likely increase DOT staff time and planning costs and make preservation, long‑term maintenance (including a 20‑year cost estimate), and lowest life‑cycle cost decisions more central to how projects are selected and funded, while forcing assessment of operational efficiency before recommending highway expansion. Local governments, regional planners, environmental regulators, ferry advisory groups and the Utilities and Transportation Commission will have earlier, formal opportunities to review environmental identifications and plan elements, which may raise coordination costs and slow decision timelines but could reduce later disputes; the changes also give the Legislature and OFM clearer information to shape six‑year and biennial budget choices. Some implementation details depend on other statutes referenced in the bill, so exact obligations and how strictly certain requirements will affect project timelines and budgets are uncertain.