LOUISVILLE — Two groups opposed to the Ohio River Bridges Project amended their lawsuit this week, calling for the construction of only a downtown bridge between Jeffersonville and Louisville rather than a two-bridge plan.

River Fields and the National Trust for Historic Preservation amended their complaint, originally filed in September 2009, against the Federal Highway Administration for failing to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Department of Transportation Act when it approved the revised record-of-decision in June.

They are seeking a declaratory judgment that project is invalid.

Federal Highway Administration approved the revised record-of-decision for the Ohio River Bridges Project following the acceptance of the Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement, which was necessary because of the inclusion of tolling as a financing plan for the project and the amount of time that had passed since the previous record-of-decision was approved in 2003.

The revised record-of-decision allowed the states to move forward on a downsized project from the 2003 decision. The current plan is a $2.6 billion one to construct an east-end bridge, downtown bridge and reconstruct Spaghetti Junction.

Transportation planners from Kentucky and Indiana agreed to split the cost of the project with Indiana responsible for the construction of the east-end portion of the project and Kentucky constructing the downtown portion.

In seeking the declaratory judgment River Fields and the National Trust are asking for relief in the form of only completing the downtown portion of the project.

“The one-bridge alternative, consisting solely of the new downtown bridge and reconstruction of the Kennedy Interchange, is a reasonable, prudent and feasible alternative that would address the region’s current and projected cross-river mobility needs and would avoid and minimize the use of historic properties,” according to the amended complaint.



THE HISTORY

River Fields has long been opposed to the construction of an east-end bridge connecting Utica and Prospect, Ky. The conservancy group has claimed the east-end project will disproportionately affect the historical properties in the area and the Federal Highway Administration failed to evaluate environmental concerns and impact to the local community.

The amended complaint alleges the Federal Highway Administration and state transportation planners failed to adequately consider alternatives to the project and that they relied on “a flawed and misleading purpose and need statement based on flawed traffic assumptions taken from local land use plans.”

Based on the “reliance on misleading information” about the need for the eastern bridge the plaintiffs said the downtown bridge only was not considered and the approval of the plan approved under the record-of-decision was “arbitrary, capricious [and] an abuse of discretion.”

Transportation planners have long claimed the purpose and need statement for the project requires the two-bridge solution, both the east-end and downtown bridge.



JOINING THE MIX

River Fields and the National Trust were not the only entities to offer a legal argument against the Ohio River Bridges Project, as the Coalition for the Advancement of Transportation, or CART, also joined the suit.

In addition to many of the claims levied by River Fields and the National Trust, CART also claims that it brought its legal action due to injuries to “protected low income and African-American minority class members who were and are the target of the purposeful, invidious discrimination on the basis of race, by the approval of the Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement and revised record-of-decision, in violation the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.”

CART also alleged that Federal Highway Administration and Indiana and Kentucky transportation planners failed to consider alternatives and gather enough public input to the project being pushed forward, but offered a different alternative than River Fields.

“Defendants’ selected Mega Project format multiplied the complexity [and] unreasonably thwarted effective public consultation,” according to CART’s complaint. “The selected process pitted the interests of two communities against one another, prevented objective public consideration of reasonable alternatives of light rail transit or funding the construction of a single bridge without the necessity of funding by tolling.”

The regional transportation organization also said a major factor in issuing the suit was the disproportionate affect it will have low-income and minority residents “by adopting a financing plan to impose tolls.”

Indiana Department of Transportation Spokesman Will Wingfield said the state cannot comment on pending litigation.

However, he did say, “we feel our analysis was conducted thoroughly and in compliance with the law.”

He added there are no plans to delay the project due to the pending litigation.