The state Legislature yesterday wrapped up its special session, adjourning sine die. Lawmakers extended a series of tax breaks and passed legislation around workforce development and permitting to assist Boeing. They declined, however, to take action on a statewide transportation package.

The lack of legislative action is perhaps to be expected. While there have been rumors that transportation leaders have made some progress in their negotiations over the last two weeks, there remain substantial disagreements on a handful of remaining issues. Moreover, while transportation committee leaders and the governor's office have been engaged in regular, frequent and substantive negotiations, the vast majority of lawmakers did not appear to be fully briefed on the details before they arrived in Olympia on Thursday. Bringing everyone up to speed and working through the unresolved policy differences was going to be a tall order.

However, while lawmakers may be excused for not completing their work on a transportation package in the three-day session, we can and should expect that they used their brief time in Olympia constructively. For example, with all the lawmakers in town, did transportation committee leaders continue their negotiations, trading proposals with an eye towards compromise? And did they spend time briefing their full caucuses on the negotiations? Did they discuss where progress has been made and seek further instruction on how they might bridge the remaining divides?

Lawmakers will return to Olympia on November 21 and 22 for their annual committee days-- a time for study sessions and legislative briefings. More importantly, nearly all lawmakers will be back in town again, offering another opportunity for a quick special session to vote on a transportation package, a point noted by Senator Curtis King, co-chair of the Senate Transportation Committee in a press release issued yesterday. According to the release, he "indicated at the conclusion of the November special session that he is looking forward to continuing the discussion with members of the Legislature and is hopeful that agreement can be reached soon..." King noted that "negotiators are working to have something in hand soon, perhaps even by the November 21 and 22 committee assembly. Lawmakers have indicated that they are continuing to move forward and are optimistic that an agreement can be reached."

Let's hope they used their time wisely this weekend so that can be positioned to act two weeks from now.

In the meantime, the Senate Majority Caucus Coalition unveiled the outlines of their transportation revenue proposal. Specifically, they have released a project list (MCC Capital Spending and Project List 11_8_13 (1)), balance sheet (MCC Balance Sheet 11_8_13), a document summarizing the distribution of revenue to local jurisdictions (Local Revenue Distributions to City County Updated Nov 9 (1)) and a summary of local funding options (Local Funding Options-MCC).

For supporters of completing State Route 167, it is worth noting that the MCC proposal provides $1.659 billion for the Puget Sound Gateway project, which is composed of the SR-167 and SR-509 completion projects. How does this compare to the proposal passed by the House in June? That proposal included $1.9 billion for the Puget Sound Gateway. On face value, the House proposal appears more generous. However, one needs to delve into the numbers to fairly compare the proposals.

The House proposal assumes $1.44 billion in state money and $460 million in "local" money for the project. The "local" money includes $95 million in tolls on SR-167 and SR-509, $130 million in local and private contributions, and an additional $135 million in tolls collected on the I-5 HOT lanes. This $1.9 million would be spent on three projects-- SR-167, SR-509, and the I-5 HOT lanes. Although not detailed in the MCC proposal, Senate Republicans have indicated that their contribution to the Puget Sound Gateway is less because they do not assume a local contribution or HOT lane tolls (they do assume tolls on SR-167 and SR-509). However, they have also said their proposal dos not include the construction of the HOT lane equipment (estimated to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of what would be collected in HOT lane tolls). More importantly, Senate Republicans have said their proposal would include enough funding for four lanes the entire length of SR-167, while the House proposal includes one stretch of only two lanes between Valley Avenue in Fife and Meridian in Puyallup.

Of course, all of this relies on certain assumptions because all of the details have yet to be seen in writing. However, it looks as if SR-167 will see a substantial investment no matter which proposal is adopted, with the possibility of an even larger investment should the Senate provision prevail.

All of this will depend on lawmakers continuing to work in earnest to resolve their differences overt he next two weeks. Let's hope they keep up the effort and not pass on yet another opportunity to invest in transportation-- and the competitiveness of the Washington state economy-- before the end of the year.