# WA High Court: Sounder Can Use I-90



## The Davy Crockett (Sep 13, 2013)

From this article in the Seattle Times:



> The Washington state Supreme Court today rejected an attempt by Bellevue developer Kemper Freeman Jr. to stop Sound Transit from building a light-rail line on the Interstate 90 floating bridge.
> The 7-2 decision gives a green light to the $2.8 billion East Link project, which when completed in 2023 would connect Seattle, Mercer Island, Bellevue and Overlake with light-rail service.


Also:



> Chief Justice Barbara Madsen, writing for the court majority, found that the conversion of two high-occupancy vehicle lanes to rail lines doesn’t violate the state Constitution because the state motor vehicle fund that built those lanes will be reimbursed by Sound Transit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## George Harris (Sep 13, 2013)

The Davy Crockett said:


> From this article in the Seattle Times:
> 
> 
> 
> > The Washington state Supreme Court today rejected an attempt by Bellevue developer Kemper Freeman Jr. to stop Sound Transit from building a light-rail line on the Interstate 90 floating bridge.


What is this guy's real objective? I think it highly unlikey that he would be concerned about the state's road money.


----------



## SubwayNut (Sep 13, 2013)

Not to be knitpicky but Sounder isn't what's going to be using I-90. Sounder is the brand Sound Transit uses for its two Commuter Rail Lines (Seattle south to Tacoma and Lakewood, north to Everett).

Sounder won't be crossing the bridge, A Link Light Rail Line will cross the bridge. Central Link and Tacoma Link are the two Light Rail Lines Sound Transit has already built.

What a ridiculous lawsuit in my opinion, thank god it got struck down.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Sep 13, 2013)

George Harris said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> > From this article in the Seattle Times:
> ...


Maybe some from the Seattle area can answer this question better than me, but he seems to be a rich ideologue who doesn't mind making lawyers rich.

From this 'puff piece' in the Seattle times, "Kemper Freeman Jr.: Bellevue's man on the move:



> Unlike many developers, Freeman has steeped himself in nonbusiness issues, mainly to promote an upscale and mobile suburban lifestyle. He gave money to a campaign to keep X-rated dancing out of Bellevue, and in Olympia he opposed a proposal to make public schools totally state-funded because he believed Bellevue residents would rather continue their local levies to maintain a quality school district.
> 
> Freeman insists the region build more road lanes rather than transit, not only because motorists bring dollars to the mall but because he considers the automobile a source of freedom.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Sep 13, 2013)

SubwayNut said:


> ...Sounder isn't what's going to be using I-90. Sounder is the brand Sound Transit uses for its two Commuter Rail Lines (Seattle south to Tacoma and Lakewood, north to Everett).


I know the title may have been misleading, and I apologize for that, it was done in the name of brevity, but do note the quote in the OP



> ...Sound Transit from building a light-rail line on the Interstate 90 floating bridge.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 13, 2013)

George Harris said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> > From this article in the Seattle Times:
> ...


He's not worried about the State's road money. He's worried about stopping rail and has used any trick in the book he can to stop it, or at least slow it down.


----------



## CHamilton (Sep 19, 2013)

Rebutting Justice Johnson’s Dissent




> Legal wonks out there will appreciate this gem: Andrew Villeneuve at the Northwest Progressive Institute has a blistering takedown of Supreme Court Justice Jim Johnson’s dissent (PDF) in the Freeman case. Johnson, one of only two to vote against Sound Transit and WSDOT, largely framed his opinion around constitutional protections for drivers and cited the 18th Amendment extensively.
> Andrew’s entire post is a treasure trove of transit legalese, so I’ll let it speak for itself. But I do want to pull out probably the single most important distinction in this entire case:
> 
> _What the Johnsons do not acknowledge in their dissent – and what anti-rail conservatives either don’t get or won’t admit – is that the urban King County portion of Interstate 90 is not simply a highway. It is a multimodal corridor that contains a highway. And this distinction matters._


----------

