Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
RESEARCH TOOLS › MRSC Inquiries › Streets & Sidewalks
 

MRSC Inquiries

Streets & Sidewalks

    Streets & Sidewalks - Roundabouts


    1. Request for information on pedestrian safety at roundabouts
      See the following Web resources on pedestrian and bicycle safety issues in relation to roundabouts:



    Streets & Sidewalks - Street Closure


    1. May city close a street to vehicular traffic?
      Yes. A city may close a street to vehicular traffic. That general conclusion was reached by the court in Mackie v. Seattle, 19 Wn. App. 464, 576 P.2d 414 (1978). The court in Mackie held that the powers to control and regulate highways have been specifically delegated to certain municipalities, which gives them exclusive control of their streets, including the power to close streets to through traffic. (The court reached its decision after looking at the powers given to a first class city; the powers of a code city are just as broad. See RCW 35A.47.020-.030 and 35A.11.020.) The court upheld the closure, noting:

        The record before us includes evidence that development of the industrial zone in recent years had a substantial adverse effect upon the residential community, and the increase in truck traffic to and from the industrial zone, and the speed, noise and dust generated by such traffic, debased the quality of living in the residential neighborhood. A community may restrict the flow of traffic into residential areas in order to reduce noise, traffic hazards and litter.

      Another case of some interest is Albee v. Town of Yarrow Point, 74 Wn.2d 453, 445 P.2d 340 (1968). The court there upheld the use of a platted street, which ended at the edge of a lake, for pedestrian uses only, stating:

        Land dedicated as a street is thereby devoted to a general or public use, held in trust for the public and for the convenience of public travel. In addition to this primary purpose, there are other permissible secondary uses which, however, must be consistent with the primary street purpose. State ex rel. York v. Board of Cy. Comm'rs of Walla Cy., 28 Wn.2d 891, 898, 184 P.2d 577, 172 A.L.R. 1001 (1947). See Motoramp Garage Co. v. Tacoma, 136 Wash. 589, 241 Pac. 16, 42 A.L.R. 886 (1925).

        The primary purpose of Haddin Way was for the convenience of the public in traveling, and giving access to Lake Washington. The fact that no pavement or sidewalk has heretofore existed upon the area in question does not control. Compare Burge v. Anderson, 164 Wash. 509, 3 P.2d 131 (1931). And the fact that the current use of the street end is limited to foot traffic is of no particular significance, for "a street used only by pedestrians is nevertheless a public . . . street within the legal meaning of that term." 10 E. McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, SS 30.11 at 644 (3d ed. rev. 1966). Absent a regulation to the contrary, "pedestrians may travel upon any portion of the highway . . . their rights therein, in relation to other classes of traffic or modes of travel, being mutual, equal, and coordinate." 25 Am. Jur. Pedestrians SS 213 at 511-12.

        In the course of the improvements made by the town of Yarrow, accumulated rubble and brush were cleared out, storm sewers were rebuilt and extended to the water's edge, a concrete stairway was constructed so that pedestrians could get from the end of the pavement down to the shorelands.

      So, a city may decide to close a street end to vehicular traffic, if it so chooses. We are assuming that by so doing, the city is not destroying the access to adjacent parcels.

      There does not appear to be any particular process that needs to be followed for a city to close a street. However, we would suggest that it be done by ordinance, adopted by majority vote of the city council, after a hearing and notice to those with property in the surrounding area, as well as the public in general.

    Streets & Sidewalks - Street Maintenance


    1. Who has responsibility for maintaining the undeveloped portions of the right-of-way?
      Normally the interest that a city or county has in a right-of-way, whether it is opened or unopened, is a general easement for travel. This means that the underlying fee ownership in both cases lies with the abutting property owner.

      There is a general principle that a city or county has a duty to exercise ordinary care in the maintenance of its public highways and must keep them in a condition so that they are reasonably safe for travel by persons using them in a proper manner and exercising ordinary care for their own safety.

      However, with an undeveloped right-of-way, the easement for public travel has not been developed and so ordinarily a city or county would exercise little or no responsibility for maintenance of the undeveloped right-of-way. It would be the abutting property owner who has responsibility to maintain this area.

    2. May a city require property owners maintain their parking or planting strips?
      In our opinion, it may. A somewhat similar issue was addressed in the case of Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Adams County, 78 Wash. 53, 138 Pac. 307 (1914). There the court determined that property owners of lands adjacent to a street or highway are responsible for those lands up to the center of the highway, including the responsibility for destroying noxious weeds. The court went on to state that the legislature "may require property owners within the state to cut noxious weeds to the center of highways in front of their property" and such an ordinance would not be unconstitutional as it is part of the government's police powers. The court likened its analysis to the requirement that property owners are responsible for the removal of snow and ice from abutting sidewalks, stating that "the rule which permits the abatement of the one nuisance will also permit the abatement of the other."

      In addition, RCW 35.21.310 requires that property owners remove or destroy grass, weeds, etc. which are growing . . . from property owned or occupied by them, which overhang any sidewalk or street or which are growing thereon.

    3. Who is responsible for snow and ice removal from city sidewalks?
      Generally, the natural and ordinary accumulation of snow and ice on sidewalks creates no municipal liability for injuries, unless the municipality was somehow negligent by disregarding its obligation to exercise ordinary care to keep its sidewalks in fit condition for usual travel. So normally a city should not be liable for an accident due to a slip on the ice on a sidewalk.

      Some cities have ordinances that specify it is the duty of the abutting property owner to clear the sidewalk of snow and ice. However, this is not statutorily required and probably does not increase or decrease potential city liability. For sample ordinances, see our compilation on snow and ice removal.

    Streets & Sidewalks - Street Naming


    1. Request for sample street naming ordinances.
      See http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/PubWorks/NamingPolicies.aspx

    Streets & Sidewalks - Street Use Permits


    1. What types of uses are allowed by a street use permit?
      There are many potential uses of the street area which might be regulated by a street use permit. For example, short term uses might include excavation under the street, utility installation, scaffolding for construction projects that extend into the right-of-way, and so on. More long term uses might include bike racks, sidewalk cafes, and newspaper racks.

    2. May a street use permit grant a permanent right to a private individual to use the street area?
      No. If a permanent use of the area is desired, then the street vacation process should be utilized. A street use permit is meant to be temporary, although in some cases it may be long term.

    3. Is a street use permit required for private landscaping of an unopened right-of-way by an abutting landowner?
      Most cities do not require a permit in this situation. However, if the full street right-of-way is ever developed, the private landowners must remove their landscaping at their own expense.

    4. What type of provisions are contained in a street use permit?
      Typically, the provisions of a local ordinance establishing a street use permit system contain an application fee, insurance and bonding requirements, safety and warning standards, and procedures for issuance requirements. MRSC has sample ordinances available establishing a street use permit system.

    Streets & Sidewalks - Street Vacations


    1. Who may start the street vacation process?
      There are two methods by which the street vacation process may be started. One is by petition of the property owners that abut the street area to be vacated. The petition must be signed by two-thirds of the property owners that abut the area to be vacated. The petition is presented to the city council. The second method is for the city council to initiate a street vacation by resolution.

    2. Must a public hearing be held before a street may be vacated?
      Yes. Whichever method is utilized to initiate the street vacation, a public hearing must be held. This may be held before the full council or before a subcommittee of the council. If held before a subcommittee, then the subcommittee must report its recommendation to the full council for a final decision.

    3. Who owns the vacated property?
      Normally the abutting property owners own to the centerline of the street. This is because in most situations the street dedication on a plat merely grants an easement to the city for public travel and the underlying fee ownership of the street remains with the abutting property owners.

    4. What if the city owned the underlying fee to the street area?
      Although this is rare, occasionally a city actually owns the underlying fee to the street area as well as the easement for public travel. If this is the case, the city remains the fee owner of the vacated area. Ownership can be determined by a title search if there is doubt.

    5. May the city charge the abutting property owners a fee for the street vacation?
      Yes. Many cities charge an initial fee for the street vacation application. In addition, state law allows the city to require compensation for the vacated easement in an amount that does not exceed one-half the appraised value of the area so vacated. RCW 35.79.030.

    6. May the city retain an easement for underground utilities that may be in the vacated area?
      Yes. The ordinance vacating the street may provide that the city retains an easement to construct, repair and maintain public utilities in the vacated area.

    7. Must the vacation be granted by ordinance?
      Yes, this is required. A certified copy of the ordinance granting the vacation must be recorded by the clerk and a copy sent to the office of the auditor of the county in which the land is located.

    8. May a portion of the street be vacated?
      Yes. It is not necessary that the entire street area be vacated. For example, a strip along one side of the street may be vacated if that is all that is desired or needed by the abutting property owner. Also, the full street along part of a block may be vacated.

    9. May a street that abuts a body of water be vacated?
      State law prohibits a city or town from vacating a street if any portion of the street or alley abuts a body of fresh or salt water unless very specific additional procedures are followed. These procedures are outlined in RCW 35.79.035 and should be checked very carefully before attempting to vacate any such street.

    10. Is there a statute that provides for an automatic vacation of streets if they are not opened for public travel within a certain time period?
      Not any longer. There was an old statute which was enacted in 1889 which provided for the automatic vacation of county roads which remained unopened for five years after being platted or dedicated. That statute was amended in 1909 so that it no longer applied to platted streets and alleys.

      Therefore, this statute only applied to roads which were county roads and remained unopened for five years after dedication between 1889 and 1909. Obviously, this is not going to apply in very many situations but occasionally reference is still made to this provision and it is found to be applicable.

    11. How does a city adjust the required compensation for a street vacation when it reserves part of the vacated property for a utility or other public easement?
      A city or town council, when vacating a street, may require abutting property owners to pay compensation to the city or town in an amount up to one-half of the appraised value of the property vacated. Often, however, a city or town will reserve a utility or other type of easement from the vacated property. In those situations, the appraised value should reflect the easement reservation. Some cities and towns specifically provide in their street vacation ordinances that the appraisal should consider and adjust for any public easements reserved.

    12. May a county vacate only part of the width of a county road?
      Yes, the two methods of initiating the vacation of a county road (by board of county commissioners' resolution or by petition of road frontage property owners) each allow for proposing vacation of a county road or a "portion thereof." (See RCW 36.87.010, .020.)

    13. If the city decides not to require compensation from abutting property owners for a street vacation, why is that not a gift of public funds?
      The reason has to do with the nature of a public right-of-way. Prior to the statutory authorization to require compensation (and apparently the instigation for that authorization), the state supreme court in Puget Sound Alumni of Kappa Sigma v. City of Seattle, 70 Wn.2d 222 (1967), addressed the authority of Seattle to require compensation in an amount equaling one-half of the appraised value of a street. Noting that the city has but an easement for public travel in a public right-of-way, the court emphasized that a right-of-way may be vacated only if it is no longer useful to the public. "The city has nothing to sell in such case." 70 Wn.2d at 227. The court then held:

      A municipality is not entitled to compensation for loss of a public easement in streets in which it does not own the fee. It thus follows, where a street is vacated by a court on the application of abutting landowners, the municipality has no such proprietary interest therein as to entitle it to compensation.

      Id.

      So, it follows that it cannot be a gift now to require compensation despite the statutory authorization, but not requirement, to obtain compensation.