Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Traffic Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances crash‑prevention‑zone bill after local officials seek a short‑term tool
Summary
Representative Mark Clicker’s bill to allow local crash prevention zones with enhanced fines and funding for safety work drew support from counties and cities; WSDOT noted indeterminate costs. The committee reported a substitute out of committee with a due‑pass recommendation.
The House Transportation Committee advanced legislation to let cities, counties or the Department of Transportation designate temporary crash prevention zones after a public hearing, increasing penalties in those zones and directing the revenue to local safety improvements.
Staff described the bill as authorizing a crash prevention zone where jurisdictions may identify a corridor with repeated serious crashes and, after a public hearing, post signage and assess a $73 penalty for certain speed‑related infractions occurring in the zone, with proceeds used for engineering investigations, signage and enforcement. Elizabeth Renz, staff, said zones may be dissolved after safety improvements or by petition from property owners.
Sponsor Representative Mark Clicker framed the bill as a local option that creates a short‑term tool to respond to repeated incidents while longer‑term infrastructure work is planned. "This gives a short term solution to a long term problem," Clicker said, citing dangerous stretches in his district and community demand for immediate action.
Local governments and risk pools supported the concept as a flexible local tool; they requested protections from liability and clarity on how funds and evidence would be used. WSDOT and fiscal staff described an indeterminate impact and cited an example cost of roughly $3,000 per mile for signage and an illustrative $30,000 corridor program cost; revenue generation was uncertain because it depends on violations and enforcement frequency.
In executive session the committee adopted a substitute and reported the measure out of committee with a due‑pass recommendation by voice and roll call (substitute House Bill 2,379 reported with 28 aye, 0 nay, 1 excused). The substitute clarified the evacuation language in a different bill during the same meeting and the committee folded agreed technical edits into the substitute before the vote.
