*1
Sullivan,
The
situation here
to that
State v.
analogous
47,
Brooks,
We conclude that defendant’s motion evidence. suppress judgment affirmed. Hale, Neill,
Hunter, Rosellini, JJ., C. concur. J., denied. rehearing 1969. Petition for May En Banc. March 1969.] 40476.
[No. John J. Relation Washington, State General, O’Connell, Respondent, as Attorney * H. Appellant. Slavin, Richard *Reported in 452 943. P.2d *2 Assistant, General, Starin, Edward Attorney Special Gates, N. for Jr., Assistant,
and Robert appellant. General, Garlington, Thomas R. Attorney Special Jоhnson, Assistant, and Delbert W. Assistant, respond- ent. J. This isan action for declaratory judgment
Rosellini, of an to determine the con- constitutionality tained in the Laws Extraordinary chapter $250,000, the amount of Session. The appropriation in the following language: provided was Community Agency Planning Affairs Fund to assist metropolitan Appropriation Motor Vehicle to make planning, corporations engineer- municipal studies incident feasibility financial and prep- ing, transportation comprehensive public plan; aration of for these legislature, providing is the intent of savings construction, future studies, promote repair highways, reconstruction, and betterment of county bridges, city roads, streets.....$250,000 appropriation, appellant Pursuant entered agreement Metropоlitan municipality into an with the whereby, agreed Seattle, $250,000, for an consideration body engineering, planning, financ- would conduct the ing feasibility preparation of a studies incident to the comprehensive public transportation plan the area of Metropolitan completed been Seattle. These studies have published report and the results in a described have been prepared Company, consultant, DeLeuw, Cather & report, as follows: n Itcovers the design elements of the transit previous provides studies, and it were a more accurate estimate of cost based on studies included engineering .... summary judgment,
On trial court sus- motion for *3 Attorney appro- that the tained the General’s contention priation eighteenth amendment to was violative of (Const, 40) Washington §2, State Constitution art. reads follows: Washington by as license All of fees collected State collected for and all excise taxes
fees the State of motor vehicles Washington sale, on the distribution or use intended of fuel and all other state revenue motor vehicle purposes, paid highway into the to for shall be be used special treasury placed to used state and in a fund purposes. exclusively for Such following: shall construed to include the (a) legal necessary operating, engineering and The expenses public connected the administration of highways, county city streets; roads and (b) maintenance, re- construction, reconstruction, The highways, county pair, roads, of and betterment expense city including bridges streets; and the cost and installing, (1) (2) acquisition rights-of-way, main- of of signs signal lights, operating taining traffic (4) operation public highways, policing by the of state bridges, (5) operation span of ferries which of movable city highway, county part any public road, or are a of street;
557 n (c) obligation any refunding of payment of The or any political thereof, Washington, subdivision or State of any in section for of the revenues described prior legally pledged date the effective have been act; this paid (d) motor on for taxes authorized law Refunds fuels.; vehicle (e) any described revenues of collection of cost in this section: not be construed
Provided, That this section shall general special excises taxes or include revenue from or apply primarily highway purposes, or not levied impоsed operator’s excise tax vehicle license fees or property in lieu of a on motor or the use thereof vehicles ownership of motor thereon, tax or fees certificates vehicles. community appeal, planning and
On the director agency construction affairs a liberal contends under planning public transportation amendment, “highway purpose.” serves a applicable must be
Certain rules of construction approaching question. borne in mind in The first grant, these is that is not a but a the state constitution lawmaking power; power restriction legislature to enact all laws is unrestrained reasonable except expressly where, inference, it is either or fair prohibited the state federal constitutions. Pacific Realty P.2d Lonctot, American Trust v. interpretation of statutes and construction provisions judicial the constitution is function. State Meyers, ex rel. Humiston v. 380 P.2d Wn.2d *4 (1963). given in the their common
Words constitution must Albright ordinary meaning. Spokane, and State ex rel. v. (1964). 64 Wn.2d P.2d 231 language unambiguous, If the is clear and constitutional interpretation by improper; the courts is but lan- if the ambiguous, judicial guage interpretation unclear and only proper responsibility is an essential not but
courts. State ex rel. Swan v. Jones, 57 Wn.2d. 289 P.2d (1955). unambiguous
Where the words of a constitution are and commonly in their received lead sense to a reasonable according conclusion, it should be read to the natural and import most resorting obvious framers, its without limiting subtle purpose and forced construction for the extending operation. Torreyson Grey, its State ex rel. (1893). 21 Nеv. 378, Pac. 190 It engraft is not exception for the court an where expressed none is constitution, no matter how desir- expedient exception might able or such an seem. State ex rel. O'Connell Seattle, v. Port 399 P.2d Applying principles question these and rules to the before provision question us, we find that the constitutional ambiguity. plain commonly free of words under- meaning, provides stood that the revenues derived from motor vehicle licenses and excise on fuel, taxes as well as highway pur- other state revenue intended to be used for poses, paid special exclusively shall be into a fund to be used highway purposes. narrowly Lest that term be too con- people scope succeeding strued, the have defined its in the subparagraphs (a) through (e). If there were doubt exclusively that the funds were intended to be used ways open public for motor traffic, vehicular these clarifying provisions Bridges should remove them. might ordinarily highways, ferries, which be considered expressly they part high- are included are a because of such ways; say, that is to motor vehicular traffic must use them crossing rivers or bodies of water. Roads and streets expressly removing any they included, are thus doubt that highways. Expenses come within the definition of of ad- ministration, construction, reconstruction, maintenance, expressly repairs are and betterment included. But all of pertain highways, are listed roads adapted all streets, of which nature and dedicated by operators pri- vehicles, of motor both to use
559 transpor- pertain modes of and none оf them to other vate, waterways, airways. railways, Nor is or tation, such expenditure funds of these for the authorization there any type purchase of vehicle or maintenance for the purposes. public transportation for unambiguous, provision of this are
Thus the words commonly to reasonable lead a in their received sense provision framing in people in this conclusion, the paid by them insure certain and taxes tended to fees privilege operating used motor should be the vehicles they highways provide could on which roads, streets Express provision the was made for those vehicles. drive might financing activities of certain structures and which highway strictly within definition of not be considered the necessary purposes, for the but were considered which purposes. effectuation of those For of constitutional implies interpretation, express thing of one the mention logically might of another which have been the exclusion Bishop, at the time. Yelle 55 considered same Wn.2d 347 P.2d appellant accepts definition
adopted by Oregon-Wash. & court State ex rel. R.R. Cy., Co. v. Walla Walla Nav. Wn.2d 104 P.2d Highways § from was taken 25 Am. Jur. which (1940): way open public large, “A is a at transportation, distinction,
travel or without discrimina- except regula- restriction, or as is tion, such incident to general public largest secure to tions calculated to enjoyment practical therefrom thereof. Its right prime enjoyment are the essentials of common duty public one hand and maintenance on the right It is of travel all the not world, other. right, way public constitutes a the exеrcise a highway, upon and the actual it amount travel open If it material. to all desire to a it, who it is use although public highway may only accommodate portion public single family limited or even a or although it accommodates some individuals more than others.” system? “way” transportation is a
What It is not all, at buses, trains, but is number of or other each carriers holding passengers, upon number travel highways may upon through travel rails or water, or operated, publicly air, and which owned and either *6 privately, transportation public. or for the The mere may highways, fact that these vehicles travel over the or appellant points may highways that, out, as the relieve the traffic, of vehicular not make their construction, does owner- ship, operation, planning highway purpose, or within meaning provision. of the constitutional affording public transportation
If the fact that vehicles highways persons; make use of and the fact that who use may refraining driving these vehicles from their own thereby saving congestion vehicles and wear and tear and highways bring ownership on the were sufficient to operation “highway of such vehicles within the definition of purpose,” private companies justified then bus would be claiming subsidies out of the funds. This we appellant quick believe the would be to concede was the intent of the framers of the are con- amendment. We vinced that it no more was intent the framers to provide planning, constructing, owning subsidies for the or operating public transportation systems, however bene- might ficial such use of the funds be to the its state and citizens. appellant cites the case of Automobile Club Wash. propo Seattle, Wn.2d 346 P.2d 695 for the upon
sition that the motor vehicle fund be drawn for purposes indirectly highway system. aid the In that declaratory judgment sought case a was to the effect that payment damages arising in a tort action out of the negligent operation bridge of a draw an was unconstitutional gasoline diversion of state tax funds, and we sus excise plaintiff. tained the contention of the We said in that case people, adopting that it was not the intent of the Eighteenth impede Amendment, to curtail or the road program of this state. contrary, peo- On the we think it the intention was
ple those expenditures to limit from the directly fund to motor vehicle things indirectly or benefit the which would highway system. Clearly, judgment payment of a tort category. expenditure fall does not within this an Such way safety, in no contribute could toward the administra- operation highway system, or of our tion, would establish but, rather, precedent that could result in substan- decreasing tially purposes. those funds reserved such This, we feel, would a detriment rather than highway system. to our Club Automobile Wash. v. supra, Seattle, at 168-69. respondent points out, As the the cited case is more supportive appellant’s of the trial court’s action than contention. It is true that funds we said that can be used purposes indirectly highway system, benefit the paragraph but the same clear makes it that those are the ones itself, mentioned in the amendment all safety, oper- which contribute administration, toward *7 highway system. ation of the may taking
It appellant argues, that, conceded as the highway highway traffic off the sense, benefits the in one but it is doubtful that that is the sense in which the framers obtaining were highway. interested benefits for the It building obvious that it was the desire to secure the and highways they maintenance of so used; that could be judicial we can take notice of the fact that automobile generally leading highways, drivers want more and better places, nearsighted more rather than fewer, however may such an attitude it Also, be. should be observed appellant’s argument way is in than more one self defeating. taking private If drivers of vehicles off the roads congestion carrying relieves tear, wear and reduces persons may congestion these same in buses add to the perhaps increase the tear, weаr and not so it much as problems, certainly alleviates these but it is not highways. to the taking money
Also,
from the motor vehicle fund
spending
public transportation
on
it
does not benefit
highway system,
may
however much it
benefit the
people
transportation problems. It
as a
whole
alleviate
longer
people
desire to
of this
no
be that the
state
licensing
they pay
have
on motor fuel and
the taxes which
spent
prefer
exclusively
highways
that some
on
and would
transportation
pur
spent
public
or all
or other
of it be
poses.
expressing
provided
If
this intent is
so, the means of
that it cannot
so cumbersome
the constitution and is not
facility. But courts should never
be utilized with reasonable
change
influence them in
allow
sentiment
giving
not
to a
constitution
war
construction
writtеn
State ex rel. Clith
ranted
the intention of the founders.
ero v.
transportation purpose purpose. to that of a respondent that metro- calls our attention to fact provide municipal corporations politan are authorized to public transportation metropolitan are not but authorized *8 planning engage construction, maintenance or in only 'highways, 35.58. Not this under RCW streets and appropriation act makes clear that but the true, planning for the of a to be used system. transportation The statement such change purpose. highways does not will benefit or A is constitutional unconstitutional statute way operates in which it and the effect with accordance
563 (1964). § that it 16 Am. 2d Constitutional Law 150 has. Jur. constitutionality depends of an on its real character act designed accomplished and on end on to be rather than professions purpose its title or as to its it, contained therefore such declarations do not Dry Lewis, conclude the court. Stewart Goods Co. v. 294 (1934), rehearing Sup. 550, 1054, U.S. 79 L. Ed. 55 Ct. 525 U.S, Sup. (1935); 768, denied 1709, 295 79 L. Ed. 55 652 Ct. (1964), § 16Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law 150 at Mere 356. give illegal declaration to a turn cannot character law or operation legal. Bunting Oregon, 426, into v. 243 U.S. Sup. (1916). L. Ed. 830, Ct. 435 Chase, Aberdeen Sav. & Loan Ass’n 351, 157 Wash. (1930), 289 Pac. 290 Pac. A.L.R.
court said: legislative carefully Such declaration is to be considered given weight the courts and due thereto. should, Courts construing containing
however, an act such declara- operation tion, consider the true and effect of the law practical which must be dealt the basis of the operation, legis- results its which follow and not alone lative declarations contained therein. holding
Later cases so
are Jensen v. Henneford, 185Wash.
209,
783, 296 P.2d cases, As we of these said both lеgislative body change cannot the real nature and purpose by giving anof act it a different title or declar- ing purpose its otherwise, nature and more than by changing a man can transform his character attire his assuming a different name. opinion As the trial court in its memorandum observed, the constitution lists for which the motor ve- diverting high- hicle fund can be used, traffic from the ways ignore is not one of them. It would be difficult to appellant’s position objective the merit in the that this is an worthy support, of the most earnest but until the constitu- people, through tion is amended it must be financed other means. judgment is affirmed. *9 JJ., and Poy-
Hill, Weaver, McGovern, Hamilton, Tem., J. Pro concur. honen, (dissenting)—This J. court is confronted not
Finley, construing provisions problem of with an unfamiliar Washington article section 40 of the Constitution. State begins The a list of certain taxes exclusively section as drafted paid to be into devoted a fund to he purposes highway purposes. to An enumeration highway purposes then set out. are to be construed to be concluding provision, certain material, A not here excludes operation taxes from the of the section. juristic appeal simply problem in the instant
The
or a liberal
should
accorded a literal
whether the section
interpretation by
previous
decisions of this
this court.
convincing
settling
me
of this
court are most
to
the law
exclusive,
not
state that
listed in section 40 are
the
they
simply exemplary,
effect,
and that the
are,
but that
Bridge
liberally
ex rel. Toll
section to be
construed. State
Authority
28, 41-42,
P.2d
474-75
Yelle, 61
v.
Wn.2d
Bugge
reaffirming
Martin,
v.
38 Wn.2d
State ex rеl.
(1951).
guide
in liberal con-
the court
834,
the benefit
the
than
to
be
more
payment
highways.
the
of social
to
Auto
costs attributable
supra;
Highway
mobile
Seattle,
Club Wash. v.
State
of
supra.
Comm’n
Co.,
v.
Northwest Bell Tel.
Pacific
event, the
not
benefit test has
been otherwise restricted
interpretation
this
of
court.
is in full accord
Such course
recognized
interpretation.
standards of constitutional
majority
rejected
In the instant case, the
sub silentio
has
previous
the
uniform statements of this court as to the bene-
pointed
utterly impossible
fit test. As
below,
will
out
it is
to find as a matter
of law this record that no
benefit
highway
ques-
the
can be attributed to the
majority
adopted
very
Instead,
tion.
the
of
has
the
rule
rejected
previously
strict construction which this court has
categorically in
2,
relation to article
section 40. Whether
majority’s
phrase “highway purposes”
the
of
limitation
the
by expressio
ejusdem generis
is
,
described
unius
.
.
.
noscitur a sociis
reaches the same result: the limitation
meaning
“highway purposes”
of the
to those
majority
the
conceived
to be
2,
enumerated in article
section 40.1
majority opinion
1The
concludes its
the effect of the
discussion
286,
Bishop,
enumeration
citation to Yelle v.
55 Wn.2d
347 P.2d
(1959).
expressio
It should first
noted that
maxim
the
unius
appears
оpinion
ground only,
.
.
.
in that
as an alternative
accom
panied by overwhelming argument
holding,
in favor of the court’s
purpose
sustaining
legislative
used for the
the
action.
Expressio
solely
legislative
unius
.
.
.
use
determine
1,
intent.
Seattle,
This
hitherto avoided
has
Bugge
construing
rel.
v.
2,
40.
ex
article
section
State
refunding
Agate
supra,
approved
Martin,
of the
Bridge
state
Pass
and its inclusion in the
Toll
facility through
construction of
free
liberal
Bridge Authority
rel. Toll
article
sectiоn 40 and State ex
funds;
supra,
approving
the use of
Yelle,
purpose
protecting
guaranty
account for the
create
Bridge against
ferry system
and the Hood Canal
bonds
majority
simply
default,
reconcilable with
bridges
opinion.
operation
of ferries
sure,
To be
(b).
subparagraph
But
mentioned
article
section
leaving
majority,
financing
uncited
their
not. The
Bugge
Bridge Authority cases, leaves me in some
and Toll
validity
decisions.
doubt as to the
of those
continued
rejection
interpretation
I
an
think it
desirable
accepted
court should
which has been
followed
*11
something
justified by
brought
supported, and
about,
compendium
impressive
convincing
of
a
more
than
and
attempt
define
differ-
construction,
the
the
canons of
an
transportation system,
public
encе between a
and a
legislature.
good
theAt
and
faith of the
an attack on the
majority
written,
it is
the
at which
level of abstraction
ambiguity
finding
opinion begs
question
its
of no
in
the
expressio
resulting
.
application
unius
.
. and
and
of
Statutory
meaning
plain
Sutherland,
Con-
the
test. See J.
(3d
1943).
§§
I am not mesmerized
4502, 4917
ed.
struction
by
majority
mirage
logic synthesized
in dis-
the
of
the
policy
the
guising
definition,
as an exercise
decision
is;
application
the
of
rules
determined
result of which
Llewellyn,
wisp.
the
the
o’
See
is as
as
will
elusive
Theory Appellate
and the
Decision
Rules
on the
Remarks
of
Are to Be
Construed, Vand.
or
About How Statutes
Canons
jurists,
ought
appellate
not to
As
we
L. Rev. 395
construing
forget
constitution.
state
we
pp.
inappropriate.
570-573,
against
appellant
See
case is
in this
the
infra.
majority’s
abandoned,
and the
search íor
been
If the
test has
benefit
only
hypothesis,
majority
explicable
legislative
on that
the
new
intent is
than candid.
is less
light
problems
Some
is
on the
of construction
thrown
interpretation
of
definitions of
2,
article
section
“highway.”
regard,
highway,
essence,
term
certainly
right
public
accompanied
user
involves
duty
Although
maintenance.
the horse
buggy
past,
surrey
part
era is
with the
and even
fringe
public transport
top
outmoded,
is
other forms
use are
nor
conceivable. Neither the common
legal understanding
“highway”
restricted
term
transport
self-propelled
to land
ex rel.
vehicles. State
Oregon-Wash.
Cy.,
R.R. & Nav. Co. v.
Walla
Walla
(1940);
95,
Since neither the common nor the “highway purpоses” physical con- restricted roadways struction and maintenance of driven vehicles by petroleum-fueled they engines internal-combustion operated were administered in I think and since ought ignored that the test benefit not to abandoned majority opinion sub silentio, I find the unsatis- be an factory finding an rationalization of ad hoc unconstitu- tionality. policy
There finding are sound reasons of question permitted by here in the court’s established liberal construction of article section highway, and that it satisfies the test of bear- ing heavy challenges mind the burden which one who constitutionality legislative must action overcome. policy
It is true that certain considerations existed have *12 favoring interpretation “highway a careful of the term purposes.” program highways The federal aid has for many years § contained а section, “diversion” 23 U.S.C. 126 (1964), application gasoline at directed the of state non-highway other user taxes. Use of such revenues for purposes, federally defined, as can result in a substantial apportioned abatement of the aid otherwise to the state. (1964); § § (1968). 23 U.S.C. 126 23 C.F.R. 1.28 The rele- 568 language im- construction,
vant “for section 126 is: the provement, highways and maintenance and administra- expenses no therewith, tive . and for connection . . Secretary purposes, regulations other as the under such promulgate fed- Commerce from time time.” The shall park- “highway” roads, streets, eral includes definition of ways, rights-of-way, bridges, drainage tunnels, struc- signs, guardrails, protective structures, and railroad- tures, highways. highway crossings 23 in connection with U.S.C. (1964). § 101 expenditures
Specific provide further authorizatiоns for (1964), utility § for facilities, relocation of 23 123 U.S.C. ferry bridges, facilities, 23 tunnels, roads, certain toll (1964), railway crossings § haz- elimination U.S.C. junkyard § control ards, 23 U.S.C. 130 billboard §§ purchase, landscaping, 23 U.S.C. condemnation, or (1964) 1968), (Supp. Ill, and estab- as amended § 319 areas, lishment of rest amended U.S.C. 1968). Appropriations (Supp. Ill, of the above all although Highway Fund, from federal Trust drawn placed upon under the amounts drawable limitation is supra. 131, 136, and sections “high- interpretation of the term In recent federal sum, keeping way considerably purposes” more in with proposed by interpretation realities of 1969 than majority law. As to of state constitutional as matter cooperation the states in matter, instant federal highway planning long-range development coordinated transportation only ordered; but is not with other forms of projects approval programs areas with federal exceeding fifty population such is forbidden, thousand if taking place. § It planning is not U.S.C. planning appear is, for federal conduct of such would properly admin- purposes, to the costs of allocable istration. policy change area in federal
Much of changes years. last 10 What further has occurred unlikely event that a liberal know. do not in store we *13 appropriations 40 allows 2, section construction of article grants- federal of conditions with the conflict legislature relied be can instituted, hereinafter in-aid appropriations. pursue in its upon the state the interest of to sec- article construction that a strict But, in the event sharing in federal prеvent state from 40 should tion time-consuming only remedy transportation, is the aid to Our na- clumsy amendment. route constitutional changing. policy should .transportation This court is tional consequences inter- seriously weigh of a standard amending require constitu- pretation the' state will change standard. of the federal to each tion to conform transpor- presently of an urban the victim This nation is unless this crisis clear that crisis. It has become tation city cease to function it will resolved, the as we know activity.2 effectively cultural business and as a focus of by graphically may reference to illustrated This Report portion subject on a of the lawsuit, a matter of this Transportation Comprehensive Plan Seattle Public for The Report Metropolitan (hereinafter Report).3 Area having considered part been and, in this case of the record summary judgment, the truth of its state- in the motion for ments deemed conceded. city topography begin by taking Seattle,
I note city beauty steepness hills. of its for the noted metropolitan by Ship area is bi- Canal; the bisected Washington. six is crossed The former sected Lake bridges; on traffic conditions latter, two. Present range best, bridges peak difficult, at from hours at these disrupts normal impossible if or accident to bad weather Post-Intelligencer, 6, col. 1: e.g., 1968 at Dec. 2See Seattle secretary transportation, Nixon’s choice President-elect job” “highways yesterday Volpe, alone won’t do the John A. said congested moving people areas. urban around the nation’s pouring large into downtown spaces said the number vehicles And he provide parking impossible without “even areas makes city having . .” tear half the . . down Transpor Comprehensive Report Co., Public 3DeLeuw, & Cather 1967). (October Metropolitan Area tation Plan the Seattle existing freeway peak flow vehicles. The moves its loads difficulty with and, all often, too sudden death and injury. knowledge All this is common citizen with judges ought radio ignore set; we not to this. Report predicts population *14 Puget four counties of the Sound Governmental Conference virtually greater proportion will double over 1965. The growth Kang this will be concentrated in and Snohomish Report predicts parking Counties. The further a net deficit parking spaces 17,000 in the Seattle central business district 1990. Whether that we assume the vehiclеs seeking parking spaces blocking those nonexistent up freeways, streets, downtown are backed onto the or they represent never left their lots, suburban substantial inconvenience and waste. only partially quanti-
The effect of such inconvenience is using only quantifiable Report fiable. However, benefits, the attempted rapid proposed to the evaluate effect of the system impending jam. predicted transit on the traffic It that system analysis by the would break even aon cost/benefit 1979and that 1990the be ratio benefits costs would Comparing 3.9 to 1. benefit to motorists the attributable who continued road, $29,200,000 to use the estimated at per annum, service, with the cost of at debt estimated per Report $18,600,000 annum in the found that the remaining ignoring safety to motorists on the road, savings, and insurance will exceed the cost to state and local proposed system. sources of the Report sum, the indicates that the social cost of not
putting rapid system operation a transit into the Seattle metropolitan significant area, exclusive of other but non- quantifiable pollution, high- costs allocable to air decreased way safety, values, destruction of scenic and harm to race freeway relations occasioned condemnations, wholesale $491,300,000 $73,900,000 would be from now until per annum thereafter. accept majority’s facts,
In the face of I cannot the such holding rapid system—open to all transit who seek subject regulation, upon it, to reasonable travel possess agency—does essen- maintainеd I highway. see how Nor do tial characteristics of expenses operating to meet exaction of a fare calculated change system fare would its character. Such of the would expenditures in the equivalent made the economic using private roads individual sector in course vehicles. rapid recognize transit can fall
I that a conclusion highway purposes to allow subsidi- could be claimed within transport by But it clear of one another. zation form of the benefit to from the facts in case that admitted subsidy. transport On the cost taxed form exceeds meet itself the benefit facts, such transit would previous test of our decisions. majority’s
I have dealt discussion whether rapid highway system transit of benefit to the highway purposes fall at some within definition аttempt length. appears clear This to me a discussion *15 pose prejudge The and a case not court. now before rapid report itself, instant case not transit but a concerns studying system transporta- rapid effect of transit problems Report attempted tion in area. The the Seattle rapid to set of concrete abstraction, transit, to reduce the drawings equipment. It then routes and and facilities system, attempted to use such a and discover who would they Report attempted how often use it. also would money compare, possible, to insofar as was cost predictable state, to the benefits and to insofar they nonquantifiable and foreseeable, were social costs system. benefits of unquestionable study required
It is that such a thе reso- knowledge questions involving lution of technical factual patterns, computations and costs, and refined traffic flow preferences. that the the effects of user It is inconceivable study—setting forth nature factual results of such quantum accruing the road from a to net system—would complementary rapid to transit be of use highway planning metropolitan in for the future the state area.
572
The legislative
that such
judgment
factual knowledge
would
in
use
evaluating
in the
necessary changes
road
net in the Seattle
area, and in
metropolitan
assessing
of that
continuing adequacy
net as
proposed,
is entitled
Miller v.
respect.
Tacoma,
374,
61 Wn.2d
legislative judgment,
with the
gauged
advantages
of 1968 the
hindsight.
August
Puget Sound Governmental
Conference
and the
Department
issued a
Highways
Transportation
corri-
Planning Analysis
the Interstate 90
dor between Interstate
5 and South Bellevue—a
route
upon
majority
not,
me,
4The cases relied
are
instructive.
Bunting
Oregon,
426,
Sup.
830,
The citation to
243 U.S.
61 L. Ed.
37
(1916),
looking
Ct. 435
is to dictum
to a result not reachéd
the court.
Dry
Lewis,
550,
Sup.
1054,
Stewart
Goods Co. v.
79 L. Ed.
Ct.
U.S.
(Cardozo, Brandéis,
Stone,
appears
dissent),
JJ.
possible
guidance
me the worst
source from which to
seek
standards
judicial
review. The case concerned
the incidence
of a
tax—
state
legislative
matter
which the court has never allowed the
recital
controlling.
to be
Washington
cited,
As to the
cases
Aberdeen Sav. & Loan Ass’n v.
Chase,
536,
(1930),
157 Wash.
289 Pac.
relevant, statutory was concerned with a declaration that all functions *16 declaration, of a school district are state functions. The effect of that as by change majority, taxing authority viewed the was to the allocation of by. changing authority. the location of effective assessment I do my majority’s holding recede from that But the is not dissent.in case. authority step for the taken in the instant case. legislature judgment. 5The is not alone in its U.S.C. 134 See 23 § provides programs population that for urban areas with a 50,000 approved highway plan in excess of are not to be unless the is properly plans improvement coordinated with for the of other affected transportation. forms of
573 Bridge.6 Washington Third Lake includes the rapid Analysis heavily upon transit relies the allocation Report. the predicted On the and road vehicle travel Analysis Report, reviews the of the basis of the conclusions proposed plans Third for the revisions to the series roadway. Washington Bridge Lake and its related Analysis necessitated that these were states revisions Report, figures developed the from which the travel program appeared proposed stage construction “it the Bridge Washington suggested previously for the Third Lake might longer Analysis, p. This statement 3. no be valid.” figures7 developed portion split in a on the based modal challenged Report appropriation of the not covered the Report portion concerned case. of the However, this rapid survey a market transit use indicates with by under-predicting split figures may the modal have erred survey, meaningful, predi- such use.8 to be must be Such plan. plan on a route Both route cated well-defined survey—as transit- second-order, the market well as generated under effects the environment—were studied appropriation. Report from itself to what
It is difficult to determine specific data is extent attributable Report
challenged. patently from However, it is obvious 6Puget Department Sound Governmental Conference State Planning Transportation Analysis: Highways, 90-Corridor Interstate King County (August 1968) (Wash Bellevue, 5 to Interstate No. South noticing judicially ington Olympia). Propriety Library, of оur State charged government planning agencies fact that of state changed substantially position responsibility area have their public document, Report, fact in a as a result and indicated that clearly Rogstad Rogstad, v. P.2d established Meyers, rel. State ex Humiston Wn.2d supra Meyers, at also ex Humiston v. P.2d 735 See State rel. dissenting). (Finley, J., P.2d at 743 estimating split applied 7“Modal technical term to methods of using private the number of different modes of travelers transportation.” Report, p. 79. under-prediction compound 8Report, p. 73. diffi Such an would converting rapid experienced rail culties when the bus transit lanes to contemplated stage proposed transit, had construction been program. *17 questions that material present of fact are in this case with respect relationship to the between data derived from the accruing and benefits to the general regard both in plans and with to the revision of for Interstate 90between Bellevue and the center of Seattle. summary
The trial judgment, court, in the course of its proof refused to comprehended consider an offer of under twelve respondent enumerated areas in proposed which the highway system. show benefit to the summary judg- granted ment assumption was proof on the that the offered was irrelevant, if even true. The enumerated areas included safety,
benefits relative to cost construction, maintenance, repair efficiency and relative to increased in utilization existing freeways, county and future arterials, roads, bridges, and streets. rejected by clearly matters the trial court were determining
material in highway. the issue of opinion I am of the showing that there is a sufficient made Report in the highway, keeping to indicate benefit to the the challenging mind the appropri- standard which those ation entry must overcome. Even if so, this is not of sum- mary judgment clearly inappropriate. in this case was Preston v. Duncan, 55Wn.2d 349P.2d 605 suspicions majority If the become the law prefer suspicions of this sup- state, I would that those ported upon a full factual canvass of the difficult issues upon argument involved, rather than in a vacuum. my opinion, I necessary have that, indicated above showing of benefit has been I made. would judgment therefore reverse the trial court and enter constitutionality appropriation. favor of the of this J., C. J., J. Hunter, Hale, Finley, concur with July rehearing 10,1969. Petition for denied.