I was around 35 years ago when the I-90 deal was cut. The only way Seattle was going to get onboard was with a commitment that the center roadway could be converted to rail transit at some time in the future. All the parties signed the interlocal agreement to that effect.

Now, logic would indicate that since 80 percent of the costs were paid by the federal government, then we should be able to assume that the rails would be built on that part of the bridge paid for by the feds, so the 18th amendment has no application. But no, Kemper Freeman and Phil Talmadge and their allies assert that the 18th amendment is in effect a Poison Pill -- any gas tax dollars, no matter how few, and the entire facility is off limits to rail. Not logical, but we'll have to see if the state supreme court decides to "legislate from the bench" and agree with them.

Kemper Freeman and Phil Talmadge are out to lunch on this topic. They can't help themselves. Freeman has been spending millions to fight light rail for decades, costing us all billions in delay, and tying things in knots.

The 18th amendment is an anachronism. Just don't expect repeal to be any kind of silver bullet. It was designed to protect gas taxes from raids by the general fund, not necessarily highway uses like transit.

Hopefully the Supremes will see through this silly case, and Freeman's lawsuit will backfire on him, by having the Court recognize that highway uses include things that benefit highway users, including transit.

What this is really all about is economics…. Kemper Freeman’s personal economics. Mr. Freeman has fought vigorously against anything that might negatively impact his holdings in Bellevue. He fought Lincoln Square to the point that it went bankrupt and he could buy it at a fire sale price. Everything is about Kemper Freeman. He may spout the “good of the people,” but in reality he doesn’t give a damn about anybody but himself. If light rail ran across I 90 eastbound only, and only stopped at Bellevue Square, he would be all for it. He is all for spending on highways until they move traffic away from his holdings. When the I 405 project for HOV lanes was constructed in the mid ‘80s he was all for north bound lanes, south of Bellevue but fought southbound lanes. North of Bellevue, it was just the opposite. When Redmond Town Square was built in the mid ‘90s he fought that as unwarranted suburban sprawl.

Until ever person in the metropolitan Seattle area give Mr. Freeman all their money and their first born, he will never be satisfied.

I-90 across Lake Washington wasn't financed by MVET and gas taxes. 90% of it was paid for by the Federal government. THIS IS A HUGE DISTINCTION THAT SEEMS TO GET LOST IN THE LEGAL AND POLITICAL ARGUMENTS.

On a related note; why are auto fuels exempt from the city and state sales tax?

“It's time to repeal the 18th Amendment to the state's constitution.”

No, the time to have done that would have been before a transit measure like ST2 was put before voters. ST2 calls for trains to use the I-90 highway infrastructure, and that provision of the constitution prohibits train use of those facilities.

Article II sec. 40 strictly limits the use of infrastructure upon which highway trust fund assets have been spent (e.g., to “highway purposes” only). Exclusive train use is not a “highway purpose”.

The ST2 measure never should have been put on the ballot given what that provision of the constitution says. One of the first rules of proper public works management is the project must comply with laws and regulations.

Why did those drafting the ST2 measure choose to disregard that part of what the state constitution says? They simply ignored what Article II sec. 40 says about highway trust fund investments needing to “be used exclusively for highway purposes”. That was an error of staggering proportions, and ignorance of the law certainly is no excuse.

The 18th Amendment still makes sense, and it should remain on the books. Drivers pay state gas taxes, and that provision of the constitution ensures the investments made with that revenue source remain protected. That legal safeguard is all that ensures all the people and businesses relying on car, truck and bus operations will continue to have available for their use all the infrastructure built, improved, and maintained by the state gas taxes they’ve been paying (and will continue to pay).

A poster above notes:

"I-90 across Lake Washington wasn't financed by MVET and gas taxes. 90% of it was paid for by the Federal government."

The facilities ST wants to obtain for train use from WSDOT extend from Bellevue to Rainier Ave. in Seattle - it's a whole lot more than just a large part of the northern span over Lake Washington.

Could you explain why you think the federal government highway grants might have any bearing on the state constitutional issue? Do you believe the protections afforded by the state constitution are, or should be, somehow diluted because the feds provided some grant money to WSDOT to build and improve those highway facilities? You are focusing on a fact (the fed grants) that likely has no significance when it comes to the legal issues the court is dealing with.

As many of you know I am no fan of rail transit, for equity and efficiency reasons, but, as the saying goes, that train has left the station!

"Light rail across I-90 is a no-brainer, right?" Right. Putting light rail across the I-90 bridge is about the stupidest waste of billions of dollars imaginable. You certainly need to be without a brain to think that is a good idea.

The money from the feds was the federal gas tax paid in WA state and returned to WA state from the feds to use on Interstate highways in WA state. In other words, although it is not the state gas tax, it is gas tax, which is paid by motorists. Why should motorists be paying any money at all towards this incredibly stupid boondoggle which is Sound Transit light rail?

Haven't you learned a thing from the financial disaster that is Sound Transit Central Link light rail? It cost about $160 million PER MILE, and the highest ridership yet has been 24,000 boardings per weekday. For that amount of money, the number of people moved is absolutely trivial. I-5 carries about 430,000 people per day past any point on that freeway between Seattle and the exit to SeaTac airport.

ST's plan for light rail across the I-90 bridge, which, at most, is only one 4-car train every 9 minutes in each direction in 2030, is far LESS CAPACITY than the center spans have with buses. And with buses in the center span, you could also allow vans and HOV's on those lanes with the buses. With light rail in the center span, that's all you get -- one lite trail every nine minutes in each direction, and no other vehicles whatsoever.

Talk about a no-brainer. Buses and HOV's in the center span would cost a fraction of light rail to build, and would carry a lot more people. Why would anyone even think about wasting all the capacity of the I-90 center span with ST's plan for lite rail?

Changing the constitution for this? Nonsense.
For too long, taxpayers have been lead down the lightrail fairy-tale path for years, and a bureaucracy is now set firmly in place to ensure that tens of billions of dollars are wasted on this massive government boondoggle. Let's not forget that even before a single mile of track was laid, Sound Transit was spending millions of dollars per month on salaries and administrative costs for months, without laying one mile of track.

When the people voted for Sound Transit, it was not because we believed that light rail was the best alternative - it was the only one on the ballot. Most folks would have preferred monorail to light rail, but that option was not part of the package. It should have been, and it should be. Monorails could already be up and running throughout the region. But Sound Transit is stuck on light rail and so we have unending projects like the 520 bridge debate and the tunnel under the ship canal which is already millions over budget and years away from completion.

No matter what the facts are, the pro-Sound Transit propagandists keep up the drumbeat: "Gee, once we get the light rail built, we will be able to avoid traffic and get places a lot faster!" Dream on. The Sound Transit light rail is slow. It is just an extremely expensive street car. It will take longer to get to the airport than a car - even during rush hour. We are spending billions of dollars on light rail, which IS NOT "rapid transit".

Folks will scrimp on groceries to be able to drive a car instead of a bus. Get real! A soccer-mom with kids, school, errands, ball games, is not going to pile everyone into a smelly bus or a slow-moving streetcar - which is what Sound Transit offers - nor is a businessperson or construction worker whose time is money. Why not build a transportation system that people will actually want to ride?

A swift-moving modern monorail can travel above-ground along existing transportation routes that people now use everyday - without the huge expense of laying track, condemning real estate, and sacrificing existing roadway. Sound Transit already has our money. Stop the lightrail nightmare.

In Tacoma and underground thru downtown Seattle, the LINK "light rail" is a "Streetcar" that shares the roadway with buses, emergency vehicles, etc. So just embed the rails in restricted lanes across Lake Washington, and have the "Streetcar" share the roadway with buses etc in the same way. Voila. End of story.

seattlelifer: you may have it the wrong way. Kemper would back the light rail only if it took people AWAY from downtown Bellevue because "Everyone knows people who ride public transit have no money!" ( sarcasm )

Oh boy, this is fantastic! crossrip and Lincoln together! Separated at birth?

First, crossrip: I am pretty sure our state 18th amendment only applies to state gas tax--not federal, since the feds routinely fund mass transit through the gas tax funded federal highway trust fund (btw, the fed highway trust fund has been 'bailed out' with billions of dollars of general fund monies over the last years) Surely you must know this. If not, your ignorance is astounding. After rereading Lincoln's comments, this applies to you too, although, to your credit, you carefully nuanced your statements. Maybe crossrip is just the more ignorant of the twins. Wait--which one supported the monorail? I like that one better.

Lincoln: Ok, we get it: you don't like link light rail. Point taken. Some are whispering you are becoming pedantic. Here is something you might like about the gas tax (since you are not a fan of critical thinking); a nice straw man argument: Image a Washington state tax of 54.4 cents per gallon of high fructose corn syrup that only went to the propagation, distribution, and consumption of candy and pop, along with an exemption of candy and pop from the state and local sales tax. Would you defend that?

"andy" wrote: "First, crossrip: I am pretty sure our state 18th amendment only applies to state gas tax--not federal"

I agree. Nothing in my postings assumes otherwise. I actually point that fact out in the first of the two postings ("The 18th Amendment still makes sense, and it should remain on the books. Drivers pay state gas taxes, and that provision of the constitution ensures the investments made with that revenue source remain protected.").

It is very simple, crossrip. Some of the fed money pays for the mass transit part, all the state money pays for the auto part. This, I predict, is what the judge will rule. If you reread your comments, you will see you are neglecting this fact.

This discussion just wouldn't be complete if the hypocrisy of diehard Republican Kemper Freeman wasn't pointed out. He sure loves 'big government' when he needs it for his own purposes to file frivolous lawsuits

The entire tri-county transit district approved ST2, which includes light rail across I-90. Just goes to show what contempt Kemper has for the democratic process or a vote of the people.

Great article, just a few quick corrections/clarifications: the 18th Amendment restricts excise taxes on "motor vehicle fuel" and "license fees for motor vehicles" to highway purposes. There is no constitutional issue with using the MVET collected by Sound Transit for light rail construction. In fact, the 18th Amendment specifically cites MVET as a source not restricted to highway purposes.

Also, Jan (second comment, above) is right, the 1943 legislature put the 18th Amendment before voters to prevent raids on gas tax for general fund purposes. No one had any intent to single out transit, it just wasn't a purpose envisioned for state funding at that time.

Finally, the weakness of Kemper Freeman's (and his array of notorious right-wing, anti-transit ideologue co-plaintiffs) case may be best demonstrated by the logical extremes to which he and Talmadge were willing to go in their legal briefs. They essentially argued that, even with Sound Transit paying the full cost of replacing the HOV capacity in the I-90 center lanes with new 2-way HOV lanes on the outside of the bridge, the state could not possibly declare that the inside lanes were no longer needed because gas tax payers have an endless appetite for new highway capacity. So, even if the state is fully compensated to maintain the today's levels of highway capacity, it is an ipso facto violation of the state constitution to allow a transit agency to have exclusive use of highway property ever used to serve cars. Surely, this is something that the ideologically anti-transit Freeman would like to believe. But there is nothing in the law, the legislative history or the history surrounding voter approval of the 18th Amendment to support this view.

"They essentially argued that, even with Sound Transit paying the full cost of replacing the HOV capacity in the I-90 center lanes with new 2-way HOV lanes on the outside of the bridge, the state could not possibly declare that the inside lanes were no longer needed because gas tax payers have an endless appetite for new highway capacity."

That's not correct. The reason the state can not declare the inside lanes no longer are needed is that the surplus property statute does not allow WSDOT to do that. That is because of the fact that this I-90 corridor highway infrastructure still is needed for transportation purposes.

Your analysis is flawed here as well:

"So, even if the state is fully compensated to maintain the today's levels of highway capacity, it is an ipso facto violation of the state constitution to allow a transit agency to have exclusive use of highway property ever used to serve cars."

First, it isn't "today's levels" of highway capacity that would be the benchmark. When R8A is completed the capacity for drivers and their cars, trucks and buses will be significantly higher (10 lanes not 8). Taking away capacity of center reversible lanes at that time will diminish the SOV, truck, carpool and bus capacity of that highway infrastructure, by a large amount. You're ignoring all the R8A work that will be taking place before the proposed handover of part of the facilities to ST.

Second, Article II sec. 40 exists to protect the interests of drivers, not the state. The $150 million payment from ST you claim would fully compensate the state would be entirely unrelated to the harm cause to those that provision of the constitution exists to protect. It is drivers of cars and trucks, and the businesses and people who rely on them, whose interests would be harmed by this proposed conversion of highway property to a non-highway purpose. People and businesses that operate vehicles have been paying the state motor fuel taxes, and it is their interests in maintaining all the highway infrastructure investments to which those revenues have been applied that Article II sec. 40 serves to protect.

If WSDOT wanted to be able to transfer a large portion of the I-90 highway infrastructure to a local government for train use it could have ensured it would have that ability. All that would have been required is no spending of state highway trust funds on that infrastructure. General fund revenues could have been used, bonds sold, etc. WSDOT and the legislature decided otherwise over the past several decades, and now Article II sec. 40 prevents the proposed conversion of a large part of that particular highway property to ST for rail. Choices have consequences, and one can argue WSDOT and the legislature made some short-sighted ones when it came to spending money in that highway corridor.

This is a good read:

http://www.northwesthub.org/east-link-lawsuit

crossrip, you still have not addressed the issue of the federal funds (~90% of the total cost) and the agreement that the center lanes were built for transit, not highway purposes. Also, the highway purposes provision can be broadened, as it was for park and rides. That said, it is time to repeal the 18th.

And I can't help but notice that the photo caption says, intriguingly, "The I-90 floating bridge as it crosses Lake Washington". I'd really love to see some pictures of the other things that floating bridge crosses!

crossrip: You are wrong. Article II, sec. 40 is not a protection of drivers but of taxpayers. The taxpayers expectations and interests are met by reimbursing them for the amount of 18th Am. funds invested in the bridge or, in other words, making the taxpayers whole (a most basic concept of legal remedies). Their is nothing in the 18th Amendment or in statute that says future added capacity (paid for with non-18thAm funds) is the benchmark for determining surplus value. R8A would have never even been proposed but for the ST High Capacity Transit plan. Gas tax payers have no vested interest in the additional capacity. Sound Transit taxpayers do.

The reality is that light and heavy rail lines are hideously expensive per rider mile. Per installation mile as well. There is no way to pencil that out, and now that we're in this depression, the numbers are glaring at us.

In city light rail or trams, or a zillion small buses will work. Remember those wide, wide streets in Ballard? Those were the trolley lines, that moved people in the years when no one could afford a car. Run buses or trolleys or little vans in square routes all across the city, all day and all night, and you'll enhance neighborhoods, create employement and save a huge bundle of taxpayer dollars.

Quit manipulating and start being practical.

The debate over the 18th amendment is a good one, that however does not address justified Eastside concerns about Mass Transit in general, or I-90, specifically.

I've read the engineering studies for the rail conversion which do conclude that a rail conversion is feasible - but also make it clear that the cost is TBD - a conclusion that every individual claiming knowledge of the transportation subject should find unacceptable on a business practice basis.

Clew's suggestion sounds like a rational compromise that makes sense on both a business and engineering basis - joint bus and train usage across I-90. (plus also emergency vehicles and ..?)

This is a solution we are not likely to reach, and it's not the Nimby's responsibility...

The lawyers involved in this case were quite articulate in making their points in front of the Supreme Court on September 16. The one hour recording by TVW is linked at http://twitter.com/#!/JN_Seattle/status/24693858543 .

I'm betting the Court will force Washington State DOT to declare formally with proof that the Center Roadway is "surplus" for highway purposes. That's what Sound Transit probably believes, yes? But proving this will be difficult, especially if the completed R8A is allowed to operate in the future for a little while before the Center Roadway is closed to motor vehicles.

Transportation is transportation, but to those who inflexibly think transportation equals highways, there is only highway use & non-highway use. To spend gas taxes only on roads makes as much sense to me as saying that liquor taxes can only be spent on building more liquor stores.

What century, exactly!

We are about 10 years away from having self-driving autonomous cars.

Yet all the planners seem hell bent on an 18th century, fixed track, low speed, linear topology technology -- rail.

And yet Puget Sound -- heck, all of Washington State -- is a dispersed, multi-nodal, rural/suburbo region...and most of us like it that way.

Instead of planning for the future, we're in the hands of a lot of big ticket charlatans who are selling us hogwash.