Neighborhood Ass'n, Back Bay v. Federal Transit, CIV.A.05-11211-JLT.
| Decision Date | 28 December 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A.05-11211-JLT.,CIV.A.05-11211-JLT. |
| Citation | 407 F.Supp.2d 323 |
| Parties | NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OF THE BACK BAY, INC. and THE BOSTON PRESERVATION ALLIANCE INC., Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION and MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
John Devereaux, Office of John R. Devereaux, Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay, Inc., Boston, for Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay, Inc., The Boston Preservation Alliance, Inc., Plaintiffs.
Laurence E. Hardoon, Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten, LLP, Boston, for Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay, Inc., The Boston Preservation Alliance, Inc., Plaintiffs.
Erika M. Holmes, Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP, Boston, for Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Defendant.
Stephen M. Leonard, Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP, Boston, for Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Defendant.
Barbara Healy Smith, United States Attorney's Office, Boston, for Federal Transit Administration, Defendant.
Under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"),1 public transportation agencies are required to make certain identified stations handicap accessible. Copley Station, which is located within the Back Bay Historic District, is one such identified station. Contrary to that federal mandate, however, Copley Station is not currently ADA complaint. In order to rectify that failure, Defendants initiated the "Copley Station Accessibility Improvement Project" (the "Project"). That Project is the subject of the instant litigation.
The Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay, Inc. ("NABB")2 and the Boston Preservation Alliance, Inc.3 (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs") filed the instant motion seeking a preliminary and final injunction prohibiting Defendant Federal Transit Administration ("FTA") from disbursing federal funds, and Defendant Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority ("MBTA") from accepting or using such federal funds or to otherwise conduct any work in connection with the proposed Copley Station Project. For the reasons set forth below, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary and Final Injunction is DENIED.
Copley Station is one of the oldest subway stations in the nation.4 It is nestled in the Back Bay, an historic district listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and is surrounded by several landmarks of historic significance, including the Boston Public Library (the "Library") and the Old South Church (the "Church"). Both the Library and the Church are listed in the State and National Registers of Historic Places, and both are National Historic Landmarks. The existing inbound entrance headhouse5 to Copley Station, constructed originally in 1915, is also listed on the National Register.
To satisfy the ADA mandate, the MBTA has planned significant improvements for Copley Station. These include: raising the boarding platforms to accommodate new "Low Level Vehicles," installing elevators and accompanying headhouses on each side of Boylston Street to permit handicap accessibility to the inbound and outbound platforms,6 rehabilitating the existing historic inbound entrance headhouse, and reconstructing the existing outbound entrance located on the west side of Dartmouth Street.
The MBTA initiated the Project in 1989 when it first sought to make the Boston public transit system handicap accessible. The MBTA first commissioned an analysis of each non-compliant station in order to determine what steps it would have to take to make each site wheelchair accessible. The commission produced the 1995 "Schematic Design Report," that identified various options for the location of wheelchair accessible elevators and headhouses at certain MBTA stations. In December 2001, the MBTA focused its attention on Copley Station. After careful consideration, it determined that the options presented in the 1995 Schematic Design Report were not feasible due to various engineering, economic, pedestrian passage, and ADA compliance issues.
The MBTA, thereafter, developed several additional options for the Copley Station improvements. It conceived four options for the outbound platform renovations and two options for the inbound platform. Option A located the new outbound elevator headhouse behind the current outbound entrance located on the sidewalk in front of the Church on the west side of Dartmouth Street. Option B located the elevator behind the east outbound entrance's open stairway on the east side of Dartmouth Street. The MBTA rejected Option B because of significant construction and passenger access issues. Option C proposed the incorporation of an elevator into the existing retail building on the east side of Dartmouth Street. The MBTA rejected this option because of substantial construction costs and passenger access concerns. Option D sited the elevator on the east side of Dartmouth Street in front of the east entrance open stairway. The MBTA eliminated this option because of engineering issues and its likely adverse impact on pedestrian traffic.
The MBTA also considered two options for the Station's inbound platform, which is currently accessible through a single stairway enclosed by an historic wrought iron headhouse located on the south side of Boylston Street adjacent to the Library. Option E placed the inbound headhouse on the west side of the existing headhouse, while Option F placed the inbound elevator headhouse in front of the new Library wing at the west end of the underground platform. Option E required that the MBTA build on the Library's side steps.7 Option F, on the other hand, located the headhouse approximately 150 feet from the existing main station entrance. The MBTA rejected Option F because of significant engineering issues, poor customer access, and the ADA requirements.
After identifying the various options for the locations of the elevators and associated headhouses, the MBTA held several meetings to address issues with respect to the historic resources in the area. In May 2002, the MBTA identified the Church and the Library as historic properties that the Project might impact. On May 28, 2002 the MBTA held a meeting with representatives of the Church and the Library, to get their comments on the Project proposal and the elevator headhouse location and design options. The Library's President and Facilities Officer and the Church's Reverend attended this meeting.
After consulting with the representatives of the Library and the Church, the MBTA, on June 21, 2002, completed a schematic design for the Project which adopted a variation of Option A for the outbound elevator (west side of Dartmouth Street) and Option E for the inbound elevator (next to the existing inbound entrance headhouse). The MBTA also proposed a rehabilitation of the existing historic inbound entrance headhouse. The MBTA sent copies of the plan to the FTA, the Massachusetts Historic Commission ("MHC"),8 and the Boston Landmarks Commission ("BLC") in October 2002.
On October 28, 2002, the MBTA presented the proposed design plans to the FTA and the MHC.9 Jane Carolan, a Preservation Consultant hired by the MBTA, discussed the possible impacts of the Project on the historical structures in the area and the MBTA's plans to minimize any impact of the proposed improvements. At this meeting, the Library and the MHC requested that the MBTA explore alternative designs for the headhouse structures in order to reduce the potential visual impact on the area.
On December 3, 2002, the MBTA presented three alternative design options to the MHC and the Boston Landmarks Commission ("BLC"). Based on that presentation, the MBTA, MHC, and BLC jointly selected a design scheme, which was a further variation of the aforementioned Options A and E and which altered the originally proposed headhouse structural designs.
On January 3, 2003, the MBTA once again met with the Library, the Church, the MHC, and the BLC, this time to explain the selected design scheme to the representatives of the Library and the Church. All parties agreed that the concept was "acceptable and moving in the right direction."10 On May 22, 2003, the MBTA held an additional meeting with the Library to explain the design of the inbound elevator and headhouse located next to the Library. At that meeting, the Library representatives expressed concern over the proposed design scheme and indicated its preference for a slightly different concept that would set the inbound headhouse off of the Library's granite stone steps and that would alter the proposed framing of the headhouse. The MBTA took these suggestions under consideration.
On July 10, 2003, the MBTA presented its 75 percent completed design of the Copley Station Project to the Station's abutters. At the meeting, the MBTA also reviewed the Project's potential impact on the adjacent historical structures. Representatives from the Library and the Church attended the meeting. Eleven days later, on July 21, 2003, the MBTA held an open meeting to introduce the Project to the general public. There, the MBTA presented information regarding the Project's scope, its history, the potential impact on the adjacent historic structures, the overview of the design elements at the street and platform levels, issues of construction staging, and the restoration of headhouse structures, including locations, design goals, aesthetics, and materials.
On August 5, 2003, the MBTA met individually with Plaintiff NABB to discuss the Project and its potential impacts on the surrounding area. After the meeting, on August 22, 2003, NABB made various suggestions to the MBTA, which included relocating the proposed inbound and outbound elevators. Several of NABB's proposed alternatives had previously been rejected by the MBTA as not feasible. NABB expressed similar concerns in a December 2003 letter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northwest Bypass Group v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng., Civil No. 06-CV-00258-JAW.
...and review of the record, the Corps complied with the "listen" requirements of the NHPA. See Neighborhood Ass'n of the Back Bay, Inc. v. Fed. Transit Admin., 407 F.Supp.2d 323, 333 (D.Mass.2005). 4. Documentation and Public Participation In their Complaint, Plaintiffs state that the EA viol......
-
Okinawa Dugong v. Mattis
...party status cannot later challenge the Section 106 TIA process for excluding them. See Neighborhood Ass'n of the Back Bay, Inc. v. Fed. Transit Admin. , 407 F.Supp.2d 323, 334-35 (D. Mass. 2005) (plaintiffs who did not request admission to process as formal consulting parties were not enti......
-
Correia v. Berryhill, Case No. 3:16-cv-30153-KAR
...or if the action failed to meet statutory, procedural, or constitutional requirements. See Neighborhood Ass'n of the Back Bay, Inc. v. Fed. Transit Admin., 407 F. Supp. 2d 323, 331 (D. Mass. 2005). "Specifically, '[t]he task of a court reviewing agency action under the APA's arbitrary and c......
-
Winnemen Wintu Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv.
...Mid States Coal. for Progress, 345 F.3d at 553 (citing 36 C.F.R. § 800.3(f)(3)); accord Neighborhood Ass'n of The Back Bay, Inc. v. Fed. Transit Admin., 407 F. Supp. 2d 323, 334 (D. Mass. 2005), aff'd, 463 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2006). In its prior order, this court found the Winnemen Wintu Trib......
-
When Old Becomes New: Reconciling the Commands of the Wilderness Act and the National Historic Preservation Act
...Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 177 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 1999); Neighborhood Ass'n of The Back Bay, Inc. v. Fed. Transit Admin., 407 F. Supp. 2d 323, 332 (D. Mass. 2005), aff'd, 463 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2006). 144. See 3 Salkin, supra note 120, § 27:3 ("Section 106 does not require agenc......