Wash. Rev. Code » Title 81 · Chapter 81.112
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 81.112.010 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature recognizes that existing transportation facilities in the central Puget Sound area are inadequate to address mobility needs of the area. The geography of the region, travel demand growth, and public resistance to new roadways combine to further necessitate the rapid development of alternative modes of travel.
The legislature finds that local governments have been effective in cooperatively planning a multicounty, high capacity transportation system. However, a continued multijurisdictional approach to funding, construction, and operation of a multicounty high capacity transportation system may impair the successful implementation of such a system.
The legislature finds that a single agency will be more effective than several local jurisdictions working collectively at planning, developing, operating, and funding a high capacity transportation system. The single agency's services must be carefully integrated and coordinated with public transportation services currently provided. As the single agency's services are established, any public transportation services currently provided that are duplicative should be eliminated. Further, the single agency must coordinate its activities with other agencies providing local and state roadway services, implementing comprehensive planning, and implementing transportation demand management programs and assist in developing infrastructure to support high capacity systems including but not limited to feeder systems, park and ride facilities, intermodal centers, and related roadway and operational facilities. Coordination can be best achieved through common governance, such as integrated governing boards.
It is therefore the policy of the state of Washington to empower counties in the state's most populous region to create a local agency for planning and implementing a high capacity transportation system within that region. The authorization for such an agency, except as specifically provided in this chapter, is not intended to limit the powers of existing transit agencies.
[ 1992 c 101 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 2006–2018 · leading case: Pierce Cnty. v. State, 159 Wash. 2d 16 (Wash. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pierce Cnty. v. State, 159 Wash. 2d 16 (Wash. 2006). “” RCW 81.112.010. Accordingly, the legislature declared that it is the “policy of the state of Washington to empower counties in the state’s most populous region to create a local agency for planning and implementing a high capacity transportation system within that region.”
Pierce Cnty. v. State, 148 P.3d 1002 (Wash. 2006). “" RCW 81.112.010. Accordingly, the legislature declared that it is the "policy of the state of Washington to empower counties in the state's most populous region to create a local agency for planning and implementing a high capacity transportation system within that region.”
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Miller, 128 P.3d 588 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 81.112.010. These transit authorities were given all powers necessary to implement and support a high capacity transportation system, including the power to condemn private property.”
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Airport Inv. Co., 376 P.3d 372 (Wash. 2016). “RCW 81.112.010; Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 1-2.”
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. WR-Sri 120th N. LLC, 422 P.3d 891 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 3× “RCW 81.112.010. The legislature recognized that a single agency, Sound Transit, would be most effective at building such a system.”
In re the Recall of Kelley, 369 P.3d 494 (Wash. 2016). “Therefore, RCW 43.88.160(6)(e) applies only to audits of financial transactions of state agencies.”
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. WR-SRI 120th N. LLC (Wash. 2018). · cites it 3× “RCW 81.112.010. The legislature recognized that a single agency, Sound Transit, would be most effective at building such a system.”
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Miller, 128 P.3d 588 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 81.112.010. These transit authorities were given all powers necessary to implement and support a high capacity transportation system, including the power to condemn private property.”
In re Recall of Kelley (Wash. 2016). “Therefore, RCW 43.88.160(6)(e) applies only to audits of financial transactions of state agencies.”
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Airport Inv. Co. (Wash. 2016). “RCW 81.112.010; -2- Cent. Puget Sound Reg 'l Transit Auth.”
Cent. Puget Sound Rta v. Sternoff L.p. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “" RCW 81.112.010. Voters later approved a ballot measure creating Sound Transit.”
In re Recall of Kelley (Wash. 2016). “See RCW 81.112.010, .100; see also Sane Transit v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.