WA High Court: Sounder Can Use I-90

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
3,312
Location
ALX
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.


east_image-300x164.jpg
Sound Transit image, looking eastward
Although the state Constitution requires that the vehicle fund be used only for highway purposes, “it does not prohibit” the state Department of Transportation from transferring highway lanes to other purposes if the fund is reimbursed, Madsen wrote. Another point that swayed the majority was that the Federal Highway Administration, which paid most of the I-90 construction cost, supported the rail conversion.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.

Four years ago, he hired an engineering firm to make the case for construction of 1,400 lane miles in the Puget Sound region and said they would reduce congestion by one-fourth.

"Kemper's policy is an anachronism," contends opponent Peter Hurley, executive director of the Transportation Choices Coalition. "He's someone who advocates road projects that just don't work. Clearly, the guy does other good things. On transportation, I think he's become fixated on an L.A. model that will raise taxes, increase traffic and increase air pollution."

Freeman and other downtown boosters have locked horns with neighborhoods north and south of downtown, where a 35-member downtown planning committee endorsed traffic studies that include an evaluation of widening Bellevue Way from four lanes to six — which would add traffic and displace homes.

"His driving force is business," says neighborhood advocate Margot Blacker, "and I think sometimes he has doomsday scenarios about how things will fold if you can't get anywhere. Places don't die just because of congestion — (his) message isn't one I agree with, but there is no question Kemper's been an asset to Bellevue."
 
...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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top