Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 47.30.030 (2025)

Facilities for nonmotorized traffic—Expenditure of available funds

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Where an existing highway severs, or where the right-of-way of an existing highway accommodates a trail for pedestrians, equestrians, or bicyclists or where the separation of motor vehicle traffic from pedestrians, equestrians, or bicyclists will materially increase the motor vehicle safety, the provision of facilities for pedestrians, equestrians, or bicyclists which are a part of a comprehensive trail plan adopted by federal, state, or local governmental authority having jurisdiction over the trail is hereby authorized. The department of transportation, or the county or city having jurisdiction over the highway, road, or street, or facility is further authorized to expend reasonable amounts out of the funds made available to them, according to the provisions of RCW 46.68.090, as necessary for the planning, accommodation, establishment, and maintenance of such facilities.
[ 1999 c 269 s 10; 1979 ex.s. c 121 s 1; 1974 ex.s. c 141 s 12; 1972 ex.s. c 103 s 2.]

Notes:

Effective date—1999 c 269: See note following RCW 36.78.070.
Severability—1972 ex.s. c 103: "If any provision of this 1972 amendatory act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1972 ex.s. c 103 s 8.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2000–2014 · leading case: Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co., 317 P.3d 987 (Wash. 2014).
Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co., 317 P.3d 987 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 2× “060 provides that “the establishment of paths and trails and the expenditure of funds as authorized by RCW 47.30.030, as now or hereafter amended, shall be deemed to be for highway, road, and street purposes .”
City of Lakewood v. Pierce Cnty., 6 P.3d 1184 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “This fund shall be for the use of the state, and through state agencies, for the use of counties, cities, and towns for proper road, street, and highway purposes, including the purposes of RCW 47.30.030.”
Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co., No. 85583-8 (Wash. Jan. 30, 2014). · cites it 2× “060 provides that "the establishment of paths and trails and the expenditure of funds as authorized by RCW 47.30.030, as now or hereafter amended, shall be deemed to be for highway, road, and street purposes .”
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.