These are all of the transportation bills proposed in the 2020 session. Each bill has its own bill number, please use your browser search feature to find the bill you are interested in. Return to the Colorado home page to pick a different bill category.

None of the text is the opinion of Engage. Each bill's description, arguments for, and arguments against are our best effort at describing what each bill does, arguments for, and arguments against the bill. The long description is hidden by design, you can click on it to expand it if you want to read more detail about the bill. If you believe we are missing something, please contact us with your suggestion. Some of these bills have the notation that they have been sent to the chamber's "kill" committee. This means that the leadership has decided to send the bill to the State committee even though it does not belong there based on its subject matter. This committee, in both chambers, is stacked with members from "safe" districts and the idea is to kill the bill without forcing any less safe members to take a hard vote. It is possible for a bill to survive the kill committee, but it is very rare.

Prime sponsors are given after each bill, with Senate sponsors in () and House sponsors in []. They are color-coded by party.

Some bills will have text highlighted in pink or highlighted in orange or highlighted in yellow. Pink highlights mean House amendments to the original bill; orange mean Senate amendments; yellow highlights mean conference committee amendments. The bill will say under the header if it has been amended.

Each bill has been given a "magnitude" category: Mega, Major, Medium, Minor, and Technical. This is a combination of the change the bill would create and the "controversy" level of the bill. Some minor bills that are extending current programs would be major changes if they were introducing something new, but the entire goal here is to allow you to better curate your time. Something uncontroversial likely to pass nearly unanimously that continues a past program may not be worth your time (and please remember, you can still read all of the minor bills!). Technical bills are here to round out the list. They are non-substantive changes.

House

Click on the House bill title to jump to its section:

MEGA

MAJOR

MEDIUM

MINOR

HB20-1030 Commercial Vehicle Annual Fleet Overweight Permits

TECHNICAL

Senate

Click on the Senate bill title to jump to its section:

MEGA

MAJOR

MEDIUM

MINOR

SB20-011 Commercial Vehicle VIN Vehicle Identification Number Verification Inspections
SB20-017 Transportation Public-Private Partnership Reporting

TECHNICAL

HB20-1030 Commercial Vehicle Annual Fleet Overweight Permits (Scott (R), Hisey (R)) [D. Valdez (D), Gray (D)]

From the Transportation Legislative Review Committee

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: Negligible

Goal: Allow commercial fleet owners to do their annual registration for vehicles with a quad axle grouping and vehicles that have 2 or 3 axles together rather than separately.

Description:

Currently commercial fleet owners have to register vehicles with a quad axle grouping and vehicles with 2 or 3 axles separately. This bill allows them to apply for a single annual permit.

Additional Information:

Fee is $2,000 plus $35 per vehicle.


Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

This makes things a little easier for our commercial fleets and streamlines the entire process. There is no reason to have separate permitting, it can be done together.

Arguments Against:

While the amount of money is small ($20,000 a year) this will cost the state highway fund money every year while we are desperately trying to find it funds.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on HB20-1030

SB20-011 Commercial Vehicle VIN Vehicle Identification Number Verification Inspections (Hisey (R), Winter (D)) [Catlin (R), D. Valdez (D)]

From the Transportation Legislation Review Committee

Appropriation: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Make permanent a pilot program that allowed approved 3rd party entities to perform vehicle identification number inspections for commercial vehicles.

Description:

A pilot program just expired at the beginning of this year that allowed 3rd party entities authorized by the chief of the state highway patrol to perform vehicle identification number (VIN) inspections for commercial vehicles. This bill recreates that program and makes it permanent. Organizations must get their employees cleared individually to perform inspections and must hold either a minimum of $10,000 in a secure account or a surety bond for at least $10,000. 3rd party entities cannot charge more than $25 per inspection.

Additional Information:

  • Permits may be denied or canceled if the 3rd party entity fails to adhere to the eligibility rules or is found to be incompetent.
  • The name, background, experience, location of operation, contact information, and any other information required by the chief must be submitted for each individual verifier.
  • Verifiers must not have been convicted of a property crime within the last 10 years.


Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

This program was designed to take some of the burden of VIN verification off of the state highway patrol, who have duties more related to public safety that we would rather have them focusing on, and onto individuals the highway patrol can vouch for. People are certified individually and must provide a lot of personal information and the highway patrol has the ability to revoke approval if necessary. This program ran for three years, worked as intended, and should be made permanent.

Arguments Against:

VIN verification in this circumstance involves more than just looking at the number we can all see on our dashboards. There are discreet areas that are provided to law enforcement by the vehicle’s manufacturer. While the program does require law enforcement approval for others to learn this information and use it, it does not have direct oversight and leaves us too open to the possibility of fraudulent activity. Only 11 VINs were processed by the third-parties in the pilot program, perhaps that is an indication that this is not necessary.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-011

SB20-017 Transportation Public-Private Partnership Reporting (Winter (D)) [Gray (D)]

From the Transportation Legislation Review Committee

Appropriations: None
Fiscal Impact: None

Goal: Add more detail to the annual report the public-private transportation partnerships must submit to the legislature.

Description:

Require the high-performance transportation enterprise, which manages the state’s public-private transportation partnerships (most prominent example of this is the express lanes on our highways), to include a summary of processes the enterprise used and will use for creating partnerships and getting public comment, and summary of actual and anticipated finances, performance, and long-term provisions of the partnership.

Additional Information: n/a

Auto-Repeal: None

Arguments For:

The current report just doesn’t contain enough detail, it is just a summary of activities in the previous year, status of current projects, statement of revenue and expenses, and recommendations for statutory changes. The express lines are a somewhat unpopular way for the state to really stretch its dollars for expanding highways and we must ensure that everything about this process is above board and transparent. The added requirements are very simple and not at all onerous.

Arguments Against:

The express lanes have been extremely successful, allowing the state to do 8 projects at once instead of 1 or 2 due to federal funding and incoming revenue from tolls. We shouldn’t mess with success in order to placate people who don’t like them.

How Should Your Representatives Vote on SB20-017