Allowing ATVs to drive on public roads might be OK. But not so fast, Pierce County

Are you willing to share lanes of traffic with all-terrain vehicles on hundreds of miles of local pavement? Are you ready for wheeled ATVs to have legal access to roads across southeast Pierce County, roaring through the river valleys all the way to the Mount Rainier foothills?

That’s what would happen under a plan forwarded to the Pierce County Council this week by the council’s Economic and Infrastructure Development Committee.

Elected officials need to do more homework — and a lot more public outreach — before they bring this ordinance to a final vote.

Short of that, they should do what their counterparts in Southwest Washington did this month: Tell ATV riders they must stay off public roads and stick to the backcountry.

ATVs, though designed for rugged off-road recreation, are also used for getting around in rural areas. People ride them from house to house, farm to farm. They’re alternative transportation for folks who will never see a Pierce Transit bus, Sound Transit light-rail stop or electric scooter kiosk where they live.

The motorsports lobby also wants to open more territory for riders to explore and have fun. The Washington ATV Association pushed for a 2013 state law that allows counties to authorize ATVs on paved roads with posted speed limits of 35 mph or less.

Cowlitz, Thurston, and Lewis counties are among the counties that have done so. Pierce and Clark county leaders have recently discussed their own ordinances.

The Pierce County proposal is sponsored by a pair of Republicans who represent East Pierce County: Jim McCune of Graham and Pam Roach of Sumner.

There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the concept of ATVs operating on the public right of way, as long as riders are licensed, insured and attentive to safety precautions. As Roach pointed out Tuesday, county roads are already shared by cars, trucks, motorcyclists and bicyclists, all moving at variable speeds.

But some rural residents feel like they were left in the dark as the proposal was drafted; it’s telling that opponents outnumbered supporters at Tuesday’s public hearing by 4 to 1.

Critics say county officials didn’t cast a wide enough net in seeking input. They consulted their own engineer, planning and public works and sheriff’s departments. But what about outside stakeholders, such as National Park and Forest officials, and nearby cities and towns like Buckley and Eatonville? The ordinance says nothing about them.

Jill Cartwright, who lives in unincorporated Pierce County, said opening roads to ATVs would make it too easy for riders to access public lands where they’re not legally permitted to roam.

“What about the concerns of off-road abuse?” Cartwright asked. “Why haven’t there been any public meetings about this at all?”

In our view, the county should consider designating more roads where ATVs would be prohibited. On Tuesday, council members amended the ordinance to exclude Crystal Mountain Boulevard. They’d be wise to similarly evaluate lahar evacuation routes in the Orting Valley, as well as connector roads between State Route 7 and 161, often used by emergency vehicles.

Council member Dave Morrell, R- South Hill, accurately sized up the ordinance at Tuesday’s committee meeting: “Unfortunately it doesn’t seem like this was vetted very well” in terms of public outreach.

Even so, the committee advanced it with no recommendation. That means there’s still time for the council to improve it.

Or shelve it. That’s what the Clark County Council did in early September, indefinitely tabling a similar road access proposal. They’ll wait to see if supporters come out in force and present a clear case for why it’s needed.

That seems like a sensible approach. We see no reason why Pierce County leaders should rush an expansion of ATV territory this year. With so many questions hanging and the coronavirus crisis dragging on, they might as well throttle down.

This story was originally published September 25, 2020 at 6:00 AM.