State ex rel. Washington Toll Bridge Authority v. Yelle
Decision Date | 28 November 1938 |
Docket Number | 27375. |
Parties | STATE ex rel. WASHINGTON TOLL BRIDGE AUTHORITY et al. v. YELLE, Auditor (BRONEMANN et al., Interveners. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Original mandamus action by the State of Washington, on the relation of the Washington Toll Bridge Authority and L. V. Murrow Director of Highways of the State of Washington, against Cliff Yelle, as Auditor of the State of Washington, to compel the respondent to audit and approve vouchers authenticated by the relators and to issue warrants for the amounts of the vouchers in payment of services performed for the Lake Washington Toll Bridge wherein F. Bronemann and others intervened and filed an additional petition for writ of mandate.
Writ issued.
See also, 82 P.2d 120.
E. W Anderson, of Olympia, for respondent.
Patrick Henry Winston, of Olympia, for interveners.
This is an orginal mandamus action instituted by the Washington Toll Bridge Authority and the director of highways for a writ of mandate to compel the state auditor to audit and approve certain vouchers authenticated by the Authority and the director of highways, and to issue warrants for the amounts of the vouchers in payment of services performed in making the preliminary plans and survey for a project known as the Lake Washington Toll Bridge.
Subsequent to the filing of the petition interveners were allowed by the court to intervene and to file an additional petition for a writ of mandate.
The pertinent portions of the petitions for the writ are as follows: That the Washington Toll Bridge Authority, composed of the Governor, State Auditor, Director of Public Service, Director of Highways and Director of Finance, Business and Budget, acting under the authority of chapter 173, p. 654, Laws of 1937 (Rem.Rev.Stat. §§ 6524-1 to 6524-21), by resolution adopted a plan for the financing, construction, and operation of a toll bridge over Lake Washington, together with approaches and appurtenances thereto, subject to the approval of and in conjunction with the public works administration of the United States.
It was further alleged that in order to determine the necessity, advantage, and practicability of establishing and constructing the toll bridge and to obtain information and data for the consideration of the Authority with respect to the toll bridge and approaches, the Authority authorized the director of highways to make reasonable examination and investigation, including location tests and preliminary bridge and approach plans; that the Authority by resolution dated October 14, 1938, adopted a plan for the route and character of the toll bridge.
It was further stated in the petitions that L. V. Murrow, director of highways, in compliance with the adopted plan and resolution of the Authority, employed interveners to make test borings; one was made at the west foundation of an overhead crossing to be constructed as part of the bridge approach four hundred fifty feet west of Rainier Avenue, another was made in connection with the tunnel approach to the bridge at a point west of Yakima Avenue, and a third boring was made in connection with the construction of an overhead crossing as part of the approaches appurtenant to the bridge crossing Mercer Slough; and that the state auditor refused to audit and approve the vouchers, and to issue warrants for the work.
In his return the state auditor admitted his refusal to audit and approve the vouchers, and to issue warrants in payment thereof. He gave as his reason that the work performed at the stated locations was so far removed from the projected bridge, both in physical distance and intrinsic characteristics, as to form no part of the bridge structures proper or approaches thereto within the meaning of chapter 173, Laws of 1937.
Respondent does not question the fact that the services have been performed by interveners, or the power of the toll bridge authority to construct toll bridges.
The description of the project consists of a concrete pontoon bridge in Lake Washington from the vicinity south of Leschi in the city of Seattle to the northwestern part of Mercer Island.
To the west of such pontoon structure there is provided an incline transition fixed span leading to the vicinity of the intersection of 35th Avenue South and Day Steet in the City of Seattle at an established grade. Here the land to the west arises abruptly comprising a high hill, and there is here provided a twin bore tunnel extending from its east portal at a point west of 35th Avenue South, a distance of 1,446 feet to its west portal at a point just west of Yakima Avenue. The route then proceeds westerly crossing over 27th Avenue South by means of a reinforced concrete structure with connecting road approaches provided. At 24th Avenue South there is provided a reinforced concrete structure for carrying pedestrian traffic over this route and thence this route proceeds crossing under 23rd Avenue South for which crossing, an overhead reinforced concrete structure is provided, from whence the route proceeds crossing over 20th Avenue South, Rainier Avenue and Poplar Place by means of a reinforced concrete structure, to the intersection of Corwin Place and 17th Avenue South at which point approach connections are made at the west end of the approach project, with Rainier Avenue, which has been designated by the director of highways as forming a part of the route of a primary state highway (Primary State Highway No. 2) through the City of Seattle.
To the east of such pontoon structure there is provided an incline transition fixed span leading to an established grade elevation on Mercer Island, such fixed incline span crossing over Navy Yard Boulevard. The route easterly then crosses over Mercer Street by means of a reinforced concrete structure and proceeds to cross under Mercer Island Boulevard and Summit Avenue for each of which crossings, reinforced concrete overhead structures are provided. The route then crosses over Thompson Avenue and other local roads, thence over two local roads, each such crossings being accomplished by means of a reinforced concrete structure. From here the route crosses under 100th Avenue Southeast for which crossing an overhead reinforced concrete structure is provided, from whence it proceeds to and across the East Channel between Mercer Island and the east shore of Lake Washington by means of a fixed span bridge, thence to and across Mercer Slough on a reinforced concrete causeway structure crossing over an existing county road and thence by means of a reinforced concrete structure crossing over and making connections by lateral approaches with Secondary State Highway No. 2-A in King county.
Throughout the bridge and approach project, where grade crossing separation structures are provided lateral connections for local traffic access to the adopted location and route are provided.
The approximate cost of the entire project will be $8,432,000; $3,750,000 will be the cost of the two bridges, and the remainder will be expended in the construction of arterial approaches. The whole undertaking will be financed by an appropriation from the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works of the United States and the issuance and sale of bonds. Tolls will be collected only from those who travel over the bridges.
The only proposition presented is whether the tunnel and other structures situated a considerable distance from the bridge are approaches within the purview of the toll bridge authority act.
That act, chapter 173, p. 654, Laws of 1937 (Rem.Rev.Stat. §§ 6524-1 to 6524-21), vests the Authority with definite powers and broad discretion in the construction of toll bridges and their approaches, and is comprehensive in scope.
The act, in defining the powers and duties of the Authority, states:
(Italics ours.)
§ 6524-4. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lyons v. Bottolfsen
...Com., 54 Idaho 696, 34 P.2d 972; McGoldrick Lumber Co. v. Benewah County, 54 Idaho 704, 35 P.2d 659; Boswell v. State, supra; State v. Yelle, supra.) judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed. Costs to respondents. Morgan and Holden, JJ., and Taylor and McDougal, D. JJ., concur. Tay......
-
State ex rel. Knight v. Hanway
...Approaches to a bridge are not necessarily confined or limited by distances from the bridge structure. State ex rel. Washington Toll Bridge Authority v. Yelle, 197 Wash. 110, 84 P.2d 688; In the Matter of City of New York, 174 N.Y. 26, 66 N.E. 584; 10 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d E......
-
State ex rel. Anderson v. Dailer
...to a bridge are not necessarily confined to distances from bridge structures proper, see State ex rel. Washington Toll Bridge Authority v. Yelle, Auditor, 197 Wash. 110, 84 P.2d 688; In the Matter of the City of New York, 174 N.Y. 26, 66 N.E. 584; Howington v. Madison County, 126 Ga. 699, 5......
-
Belts v. State ex rel. Dept. of Highways
...in each particular case. State ex rel. Knight v. Hanway, 136 W.Va. 219, 67 S.E.2d 1 (1951); State ex rel. Washington Toll Bridge Authority v. Yelle, 197 Wash. 110, 84 P.2d 688 (1938); State v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 246 Ill. 188, 92 N.E. 814 It is incumbent upon respondents to improve the l......