Wash. Rev. Code » Title 47 · Chapter 47.36
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 47.36.060 (2026)

Traffic devices on county roads and city streets

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions shall place and maintain such traffic devices upon public highways under their jurisdiction as are necessary to carry out the provisions of the law or local traffic ordinances or to regulate, warn, or guide traffic. Cities and towns, which as used in this section mean cities and towns having a population of over fifteen thousand according to the latest federal census, shall adequately equip with traffic devices, streets that are designated as forming a part of the route of a primary or secondary state highway and streets which constitute connecting roads and secondary state highways to such cities and towns. The traffic devices, signs, signals, and markers shall comply with the uniform state standard for the manufacture, display, direction, and location thereof as designated by the department. The design, location, erection, and operation of traffic devices and traffic control signals upon such city or town streets constituting either the route of a primary or secondary state highway to the city or town or connecting streets to the primary or secondary state highways through the city or town shall be under the direction of the department, and if the city or town fails to comply with any such directions, the department shall provide for the design, location, erection, or operation thereof, and any cost incurred therefor shall be charged to and paid from any funds in the motor vehicle fund of the state that have accrued or may accrue to the credit of the city or town, and the state treasurer shall issue warrants therefor upon vouchers submitted and approved by the department.
[ 1984 c 7 s 192; 1961 c 13 s 47.36.060. Prior: 1955 c 179 s 4; 1939 c 81 s 1; 1937 c 53 s 52; RRS s 6400-52.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1953–2024 · leading case: Bradshaw v. City of Seattle, 264 P.2d 265 (Wash. 1953).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bradshaw v. City of Seattle, 264 P.2d 265 (Wash. 1953). · cites it 6× “137, Laws of 1937 (from which the section is derived), in which the legislature adopted a comprehensive set of legal rules known as the Washington state highway act. Section 50 of the act directed the state director of highways to adopt a uniform system of traffic control…”
Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 286 v. Sand Point Country Club, 519 P.2d 985 (Wash. 1974). “2d 800 (1953), holding RCW 47.36.060 too indefinite to impose upon municipalities an affirmative duty to install traffic signs at intersections.”
Crossen v. Skagit Cnty., 653 P.2d 1365 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “Such traffic devices, signs, signals and markers shall comply with the Uniform State Standard for the Manufacture, Display, Direction and Location thereof, as designated by the State Highway Commission," based upon RCW 47.36.060. The Court: That exception is noted.”
Owen v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., 56 P.3d 1006 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “RCW 47.36.060. According to an interlocal agreement executed in 1992, Tukwila contracted with the city of Kent to construct the traffic signal at 72nd Avenue South and South 180th Street, after which the city of Tukwila agreed to assume the operation and maintenance of the…”
Radosevich v. Cnty. Commissioners, 476 P.2d 705 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970). “030 provides that the signs erected by the county *607 shall conform in all respects to the uniform standards promulgated by the State Highway Commission. Both RCW 46.61.190 and 47.36.110 apply to yield signs on county roads.”
Gregory Ryan, Et Ano., V. City Of Renton, Et Ano. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “RCW 47.36.060. The MUTCD requires that center lines be used to delineate the separation of traffic lanes traveling in opposite directions of travel in three possible configurations: (1) two direction passing zone markings of a normal broken yellow line, (2) one direction no…”
Owen v. Bnsf R.R., Inc., 56 P.3d 1006 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “RCW 47.36.060. According to an interlocal agreement executed in 1992, Tukwila contracted with the City of Kent to construct the traffic signal at 72nd Avenue South and South 180th Street, after which the City of Tukwila agreed to assume the operation and maintenance of the…”
Carlson v. City of Wenatchee, 350 P.2d 457 (Wash. 1960). “160 provides: “Nothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute, can be deemed a nuisance.”
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.