I was pleased when I
first learned of the BBB intension to initiate legal action to block East Link
because Sound Transit had failed to consider a tunnel from 1-90. My 6/17/12 blog “BRT Better Than Tunnel for East Link”
suggested BRT was a better alternative because it was both “feasible” and
“prudent”.
When I wrote the blog
my only source was the June 13 article in the Seattle Times that dealt only
with the tunnel. The lack of any
recent information prompted me to look further. I found a copy of the actual filing on King5.com, “Lawsuit
seeking to block Bellevue light rail extension,” Case 2:12-cv-01019. It was filed on 6/12/12 in U.S.
District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle by Gendler & Mann
LLP on behalf of Building A Better Bellevue and Friends of Enatai.
It seeks a Declaratory
Judgment and Injunctive Relief claiming the Records of Decision (ROD) issued by
the U.S. Dept. of Trans., Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and others
violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to consider feasible
and prudent alternatives.
The 25 page document
describes in detail the needless environmental damage that will be done by the
East Link along the route into Bellevue and criticizes Sound Transit for
failing to consider bus rapid transit (BRT) for the I-90 Bridge. I was impressed. Here was a legal complaint filed in a
U.S. District Court raising the same concerns I’ve had for years.
I emailed Gendler &
Mann for a status update but they have not responded. I’m no lawyer but this seems like an easy case to win (slam
dunk?) if the BBB continues with the lawsuit. Sound Transit’s decision to tunnel from
the University to Northgate eliminated my 6/17 post concerns the Bellevue tunnel
alternative was not “prudent”. Presumably Sound Transit would be "persuaded" BRT was the best alternative. It's unfortunate the Bellevue City Council seems to be ignoring the issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment