ESB 5595
SignedSenate
Shared streets
Establishing shared streets.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill creates a new category called 'shared streets' where pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles share the road, with clear rules about who has the right-of-way. It also updates traffic laws to improve safety for vulnerable users and gives local governments more flexibility to set lower speed limits on shared streets.
- Allows local governments to designate nonarterial streets as 'shared streets', where pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles share the same space.
- Establishes a right-of-way hierarchy: vehicles must yield to pedestrians, bicyclists, and micromobility device users; bicyclists and micromobility users must yield to pedestrians.
- Defines 'micromobility devices' to include electric scooters and mobility devices like EPAMDs, and clarifies that shared street rules override standard pedestrian and bicycle rules on those streets.
- Allows local governments to set a 10 mph speed limit on shared streets without requiring a full engineering and traffic investigation for the initial limit.
- Adds new rules for passing vulnerable users (e.g., pedestrians, cyclists) on regular roads—including a requirement to move into a left lane when possible and pass at least 3 feet away—and creates an additional fine for violations, deposited into a safety education fund.
- Exempts shared streets from certain standard traffic rules, including rules about walking on roadways, crossing outside crosswalks, and bicycle lane positioning.
Who is affected
- Pedestrians, bicyclists, and micromobility device users — Residents who walk, bike, or use devices like electric scooters or mobility scooters will have clearer rules about who has the right-of-way on streets designated as shared streets.
- Motor vehicle drivers — Drivers will need to yield to pedestrians and other non-vehicle users on shared streets and follow new rules for passing vulnerable users on regular roads, including possible fines for violations.
- Local government agencies and transportation departments — Local governments (cities, counties) gain authority to designate shared streets and set lower speed limits (e.g., 10 mph) on those streets without needing a full traffic study for initial implementation.
- People with disabilities — People with disabilities will benefit from clearer sidewalk access rules and inclusion in protections for shared streets and crossing rules.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
By explicitly requiring vehicles to yield to pedestrians and micromobility users on shared streets—and exempting those users from conflicting standard rules—the bill reduces ambiguity in right-of-way, which is strongly associated with fewer crashes in international shared-street implementations (e.g., Netherlands, Denmark).
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 2(6), Sec. 5(7), Sec. 6(6)Allowing 10 mph speed limits on shared streets without engineering studies significantly lowers the barrier for localities to implement traffic-calming measures—evidence shows that 10–20 mph speed zones reduce fatal and serious-injury crashes by 40–60% (WHO, IIHS).
TransportationPeopleRef: Sec. 3(3)(a), Sec. 3(3)(b)Mandating a minimum 3-foot pass distance and lane changes on single-lane roads for vulnerable users aligns with best practices shown to reduce cyclist and pedestrian injuries by up to 50% (NHTSA, 2022).
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(a)(ii)(A), Sec. 4(2)(a)(ii)(B)Directing additional fines from unsafe passing violations into a vulnerable roadway user education fund creates a dedicated revenue stream for safety education—targeted at high-risk groups like teens and older adults—potentially reducing repeat offenses and crash severity.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(c), Sec. 4(1)(b)(ii)Clarifying that pedestrians with disabilities may walk on roadways when sidewalks lack accessibility (e.g., no curb ramps) and exempting them from sidewalk-only rules on shared streets improves mobility and safety for a historically excluded group.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1), Sec. 2(2)(b)
Potential Concerns (5)
Exempting shared streets from standard pedestrian and bicycle rules (e.g., walking on roadways, crossing outside crosswalks, bicycle lane positioning) may create confusion and increase crash risk if drivers and users misinterpret the scope of the shared street design or if signage is unclear or inconsistent across jurisdictions.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(6), Sec. 4(2)(e), Sec. 5(7), Sec. 6(6)While the bill reduces the need for engineering studies for 10 mph shared street speed limits, it does not provide state funding to offset implementation costs (e.g., signage, pavement markings, public education), potentially burdening cash-strapped local transportation departments—especially smaller municipalities.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(3)(a)The requirement to move into the opposite lane to pass vulnerable users on single-lane roads may increase crash risk on narrow or high-speed roads where opposing traffic is frequent or sightlines are poor—particularly in rural or suburban areas without centerline rumble strips.
TransportationLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(a)(ii)(A), Sec. 4(2)(a)(ii)(B)The additional fines for unsafe passing (e.g., $360+ per violation under RCW 46.63.110(3)) may disproportionately affect low-income drivers, including gig economy workers (e.g., delivery drivers, ride-hail drivers) who operate under time pressure and may lack vehicle design features (e.g., wide mirrors, blind-spot alerts) to comply reliably.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(b), Sec. 4(1)(b)(i)The right-of-way hierarchy (vehicles yield to pedestrians, then bicyclists/micromobility users yield to pedestrians) is conceptually sound but may be difficult to enforce or adjudicate in practice, especially where video evidence is unavailable—potentially leading to inconsistent enforcement or disputes over fault in collisions.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 1(3)
Who Is Most Affected
Pedestrians, especially those walking for transportation or with mobility devices, benefit significantly from clearer right-of-way rules and lower speeds on shared streets. The bill’s design prioritizes their safety over vehicle convenience, reducing crash risk in high-traffic urban corridors.
Bicyclists and micromobility users gain explicit legal protections and standardized passing rules, but may face challenges on narrow roads where the 3-foot pass requirement conflicts with traffic flow—especially in rural areas. Overall, the net effect is strongly positive for active transportation users.
Local governments gain flexibility to implement traffic-calming measures quickly, but must absorb implementation costs (signage, public outreach). Smaller municipalities may struggle with capacity, while larger cities (e.g., Seattle, Spokane) are better positioned to adopt shared streets rapidly.
Drivers face new legal obligations and potential fines, but the bill does not impose sweeping restrictions—only targeted changes to passing behavior and speed limits on designated streets. Most drivers will be unaffected outside shared-street zones, and compliance costs are low.
People with disabilities benefit from explicit accessibility accommodations (e.g., walking on roadways when sidewalks lack curb ramps) and inclusion in shared-street protections. However, the bill does not fund infrastructure upgrades (e.g., curb ramps), limiting broader accessibility gains.