When area voters passed Sound Transit’s “ST-2” expansion plan last fall, they knew they’d be paying for light rail across the I-90 bridge. They may not have known they’d be paying for the bridge itself.
Such is the debate between Sound Transit and the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) over the “East Link” extension of the area’s now-operational light rail network. The proposed project would eventually occupy the two reversible lanes on the Lake Washington Bridge connecting Seattle with Mercer Island, Bellevue and Redmond. WSDOT has demanded compensation before turning those lanes over to light rail. Sound Transit has refused to pay.
To help find a solution, the state legislature commissioned an independent report on the compensation controversy. The report, compiled by Seattle law firm Stoel Rives, analyzes three decades of bridge-related agreements and numerous methods to calculate the structure’s value. A draft of the report was submitted to the state legislature and Sound Transit this week. Though a hard cost figure is not included in the 53-page review, the main message is simple: Sound Transit must pay to play.
Bridge Agreements Favor Transit
The independent review starts at the beginning: the 1976 political compromise between local leaders that made the I-90 bridge a reality. This agreement included a stipulation that the bridge “shall be designed and constructed so that conversion of all or part of the transit roadway to fixed guideway is possible,” with two of the I-90 lanes “designed for and permanently committed to transit use.” Without this transit emphasis, Seattle would not have agreed to the project and the bridge would never have been built.
The initial multi-party bridge agreement was updated in 2004 with a continued emphasis on center-lane transit. The 2004 amendments announced a widening of the bridge’s east and westbound sections from three lanes to four, thus maintaining an 8-lane roadway after the planned conversion of the center lanes to light rail.
It seems there has never been doubt that the two center lanes of the I-90 bridge are reserved for eventual transit use. But despite universal agreement that transit in the center I-90 lanes was inevitable, neither side discussed potential compensation for the lanes themselves. Because no apparent agreement was ever made on center lane conversion, the independent reviewers had to look to previous acquisition deals between WSDOT and Sound Transit as well as state and federal laws regulating the transfer of public right-of-way to determine whether compensation is required.
State and Federal Laws Require Compensation
The bridge itself was funded by a standard “90/10” transportation formula, with 90 percent of the construction cost paid by the federal government and 10 percent funded by the state. The state’s share was financed through the state fuel and license tax, funding that is constitutionally limited “exclusively for highway purposes.” The review found that conversion of the center lanes to purposes other than highway without compensation to WSDOT could violate this state constitutional provision.
A long-standing land transfer agreement between WSDOT and Sound Transit also limits conversion of highways without compensation. Previous land transfers between the two agencies have required payment of fair market value for any converted highway property in accordance with federal regulations. State law places a similar limit on transfers, requiring compensation in exchange for real property.
Determining Appropriate Payment
Since compensation appears necessary under applicable transportation laws, the independent review turned its attention to determining proper value of the center lanes. But finding a price tag for a roadway carrying tens of thousands of vehicles each day isn’t an easy task—which is a fact the report explained in pages of esoteric research.
After analyzing a myriad of methods used by appraisers across multiple fields, the independent review recommended a baseline valuation method. First, apply “across the fence” methodology to evaluate each segment of the I-90 bridge corridor individually. This approach is widely employed where different segments of a single piece of property vary in their individual values. Since the underlying corridor real estate in Mercer Island and Bellevue has more development value than the undevelopable water beneath the bridge, these segments must be appraised separately before a final calculation can be made. Second, limit the final compensation cost to the 10 percent project contribution originally provided by the state, and further reduce that contribution by three-fourths since only two of eight lanes will be converted. Finally, consider fixed guideway transit the best use of the property and credit Sound Transit for any payment it provides for WSDOT’s planned expansion of the current roadway.
Calculating a Final Figure
With analysis of bridge agreements and appraisal methods, the first phase of the independent review is now complete. Putting that information to work in a hard-number appraisal is the next step. But further federal input will be needed in the interim before local decision makers can pass judgment on a recommended compensation plan. Representatives from Stoel Rives plan to meet with transportation leaders to discuss the draft report on July 27 before further actions are taken.
