Opinion ID: 2455414
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Direct Precedent Prohibits Using the MVF to Fund Public Transportation

Text: ¶ 42 Were any question left after considering the text of the state constitution, this court specifically decided this same issue in State ex rel. O'Connell v. Slavin, 75 Wash.2d 554, 452 P.2d 943 (1969). In O'Connell, we held that public transportation is not a highway purpose under article II, section 40. This court stated that the construction, ownership, operation, or planning of a public transportation system is not a highway purpose, within the meaning of [article II, section 40].). Id. at 560, 452 P.2d 943. Thus, this court held that the state constitution prohibits an appropriation from the MVF to fund public transportation projects. Id. (We are convinced that it was no more the intent of the framers to provide subsidies for the planning, constructing, owning or operating of public transportation systems, however beneficial such a use of the funds might be to the state and its citizens.). ¶ 43 The majority concedes that [s]ection 204(3) . . . appropriates $300,000 from the `motor vehicle account' to fund `an independent analysis of methodologies to value the reversible lanes on Interstate 90 to be used for high capacity transit. . . .' Majority at ___ (quoting Laws of 2009, ch. 470, § 204(3)). In other words, the legislation at issue appropriates MVF moneys to value land for the ultimate purpose of high capacity transita form of public transportation. Both the text of the state constitution and our holding in O'Connell prohibit using the MVF to fund any stage of public transportation projects, including preparation and planning. Strict adherence to traditional canons of interpretation and well-settled precedent leads to the conclusion that the appropriation at issue is unconstitutional.