Cleveland Stockmeyer (206) 574-6661

Talmadge & Stockmeyer PLLC

(for identification only)

Attorney: Mickey Gendler, (206) 621-8868.

Case: Filed April 2000, US Judge Barbara Rothstein. Alleges violations of the US Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination in projects using federal funds. Alleges "disproportionately high and adverse environmental and safety harms and housing burdens on the low-income and minority residents of the Rainier Valley." The Rainier Valley is about 4 miles long, in South Seattle, home to many minority and immigrant groups, including some 50 ethnicities including African American, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Filipino, and other Asian nationalities, as well as recent Eastern European immigrants.

In white neighborhoods in other parts of Seattle, the Light Rail trains will be placed in tunnels. In the Rainier Valley, Sound Transit plans to put Light Rail in the street for about four miles, taking away two lanes of traffic, requiring widening of the street and numerous property takes, principally of small businesses and community groups. Most of the businesses, churches and community centers along MLK Jr. Way S. are housed in buildings that are very close to the street edge.

Some 243 properties have to be taken along the four miles of the project in the Rainier Valley, while only some 40 properties have to be taken along the other 17 miles.

SOV’s experts are two of the foremost academics in the field of environmental justice, Professors Bob Bullard (Clark Atlanta University) and Devon Pena (University of Washington). They note that each property taking affects far greater numbers of people than the owner of the property. Typically, an immigrant who successfully establishes a business will end up supporting a large number of relatives and in-laws. Accordingly, when one business is displaced, this can eliminate the economic foundation of an extended family group including dozens of people. Moreover, many of the takes involves community centers, churches and similar organizations. Relocation properties are not available and relocation outside the particular ethnic community does not work.

Status. Sound Transit asked last November for continuance of the suit until July. The Court granted the continuance. There were two reasons. First, Sound Transit admitted there were uncertainties in the project. Second, Sound Transit pointed to a pending US Supreme Court case on whether there is a private right of action absent intentional discrimination. (The SOV claim alleges both intentional and effects discrimination.) As a condition of the continuance, the Court imposed a condition that Sound Transit must cease all efforts to initiate property acquisitions or any contacts with property owners.

Comments. There is a strong case for effects-based or intentional discrimination. For example, while the RTA originally claimed a tunnel in the Rainier Valley would be prohibitively expensive at $400 million, it has now increased total project cost for other reasons by over one billion dollars.

Moreover, the delay is increasing property acquisition costs. The original estimate of $25 million is now $90 million but an outsider indicates the true figure should be on the order of $186 million (Hal Cooper, 1995$). Oct. 25, 2000 WSJ NW Edition.

Attorney: Jack Alkire, (206) 583-8458.

Case: Filed October 2000 in front of US Judge Zilly. Alleges NEPA, Clean Air Act, Transportation Equity Act Claims and APA claims focusing on the inadequacies of the EIS and consideration of alternatives. Among other inadequacies, the complaint notes Sound Transit failed to mention that Light Rail kills people, that it risks gridlocking downtown Seattle and the University District, in part because the plan changed and called for buses to be evicted from the downtown bus tunnel; lack of consideration of expanded bus service; no consideration of effects of design changes including setting a terminus at the University District, excluding buses form the bus tunnel, changes in station locations.

The claim that Sound Transit violated the Transportation Equity Act alleges: treating no-build and TSM alternatives as equivalent; failing to consider the alternative of buying more buses (particularly since the RTA admits up to 70% of new Light Rail riders will be former bus riders); absence of mobility improvements in that bus tunnel capacity with Light Rail is less than it is with buses running tin the bus tunnel; absence of environmental benefits in that the plan will reduce projected increase in congestion by less than 2%; the inability of the RTA to construct the project on budget and on time; and the absence of local financial commitment where the plan as it now exists is not what voters approved in 1996 (it is over budget, delayed three years, requires State funding, does not preserve the bus tunnel for busses and will not preserve sub area equities).

Status. Cross motions for summary judgment scheduled for September.

Comments. Strong presentation of inadequacies of the project under NEPA, TEA, APA, CAA; case is strengthened by the fact that the project is still "evolving," i.e., the additional three years of delay has significant impacts on the local bus system which were never considered.

Attorney: Charles Horner, (253) 852-2345.

Case: Filed in 2000; NEPA claim before US Judge Zilly.

Focuses on the lack of consideration of alternatives such as monorail.

Monorail is favored in Seattle where city voters twice approved initiatives calling for expansion of the existing Seattle monorail – last year the vote was 58% in favor with over 158,000 Seattle voters voting to authorize $6 million in planning funds and $200 million in bond reserves towards monorail construction in Seattle. Monorail is proven technology in the older system in Seattle, and in older and more modern systems built in many cities in Japan, Kuala Lumpur, Sydney, etc.

This case alleges the RTA arbitrarily excluded monorail by requiring (for no good reason) that the system be able to run at grade, in the bus tunnel, and in elevated segments. This requirement effectively excluded all sorts of alternative systems which were never studied, not only a fully elevated monorail but also proven technologies such as the AGT system (Skytrain, automated guideway transit) in Vancouver, B.C.

Monorail is particularly suited for Seattle since it can climb grades up to 10%; it requires no tunnels, and tunnels are expensive in Seattle; monorail is cheaper to elevate than Light Rail; and monorail is generally cheaper than Light Rail (the mayor’s study estimated monorail would cost $75 million per mile while the U District-Lander portion of Light Rail would cost about $370 million per mile).

The suit also alleges inadequate EIS and failure to prepare SEIS as the project has changed.

Status: motions for summary judgment have been submitted.

Comments: Strong case as the RTA never considered any alternative technologies. Case threatens to delay Light Rail significantly and underscores that Light Rail opponents include a large segment of the population and persons who strongly favor mass transit.

###