The Saint Paul Branch of The Nat'l Ass'n For the Advancement of Colored People v. United States Dep't of Transp.

• Decision Date: 27 January 2011
• Docket Number: Civil No. 10–147 (DWF/AJB).
• Citation: 764 F.Supp.2d 1092
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
• Parties: The SAINT PAUL BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE; Community Stabilization Project, a Minnesota non-profit corporation; Aurora/Saint Anthony Neighborhood Development Corporation, a Minnesota non-profit corporation; Pilgrim Baptist Church; Shear Pleasure, Inc.; Metro Bar & Grill, Inc. d/b/a Arnellia's; Carolyn Brown; Deborah Montgomery; Michael Wright; Leetta Douglas; and Gloria Presley Massey, Plaintiffs,v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; The Metropolitan Council; and Federal Transit Administration, Defendants.

764 F.Supp.2d 1092

The SAINT PAUL BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE; Community Stabilization Project, a Minnesota non-profit corporation; Aurora/Saint Anthony Neighborhood Development Corporation, a Minnesota non-profit corporation; Pilgrim Baptist Church; Shear Pleasure, Inc.; Metro Bar & Grill, Inc. d/b/a Arnellia's; Carolyn Brown; Deborah Montgomery; Michael Wright; Leetta Douglas; and Gloria Presley Massey, Plaintiffs,

v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; The Metropolitan Council; and Federal Transit Administration, Defendants.

Civil No. 10–147 (DWF/AJB).

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

Jan. 27, 2011.

Thomas F. DeVincke, Esq., Bonner & Borhart LLP, for Plaintiffs.David W. Fuller, and Friedrich A.P. Siekert, Assistant United States Attorneys, United States Attorney's Office; and Paul D. Barker, Jr., Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, counsel for Defendants United States Department of Transportation and Federal Transit Administration.Paul D. Reuvers, Esq., and Jason J. Kuboushek, Esq., Iverson Reuvers, LLC; and Ann K. Bloodhart, Esq., and Donald J. Mueting, Esq., Metropolitan Council.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DONOVAN W. FRANK, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs The Saint Paul Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (the “NAACP”), Community Stabilization Project, Aurora/Saint Anthony Neighborhood Development Corporation, Shear Pleasure, Inc., Metro Bar & Grill, Inc. d/b/a Arnellia's, Carolyn Brown, Deborah Montgomery, Michael Wright, Leetta Douglas, and Gloria Presley Massey (together, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against United States Department of Transportation (“US DOT”), Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”) (together, “Federal Defendants”), and the Metropolitan Council (collectively, “Defendants” or “Agencies”).

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4331, et seq. (“NEPA”), and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. (“APA”), by preparing a deficient Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) for the Central Corridor Light Rail Transit project (“CCLRT Project” or “Project”).¹ Plaintiffs seek an injunction ordering Defendants to prepare an adequate environmental impact statement (“EIS”) and to enjoin further construction of the CCLRT Project until Defendants have complied with their NEPA obligations. Plaintiffs, Federal Defendants, and the Metropolitan Council each move separately for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the pending motions.

BACKGROUND

The Central Corridor refers to the area that links the central business districts of downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota. (FTA 3516.) ² The Central Corridor is one of the region's most ethnically, racially, and culturally diverse areas. (FTA 641.) The Central Corridor is also experiencing rapid growth in population, housing, and employment. ( Id.) The Central Corridor “has a high percentage of minorities, households without automobiles, people with low incomes, and households below poverty level.” ( Id. 644.) Thus, a substantial percentage of the population of the Central Corridor relies on transit to get to work, healthcare facilities, schools, shopping destinations, and for recreation. ( Id.) Further, the Central Corridor is experiencing transportation problems due to growth and development, such as increased traffic congestion, bus ridership, and travel times. In addition, there is a decreased availability of affordable parking and a limited ability to expand existing roadways. ( Id. 640, 3538, 5094–95.) For over 20 years, the Central Corridor has been identified as an area where mobility and capacity should be improved. ( Id. 3516.)

The portion of the Central Corridor that Plaintiffs describe as their community is referred to in the environmental documents as the Midway East segment. Midway East comprises the area in St. Paul along University Avenue between Rice Street and Snelling Avenue. Midway East comprises much of what was, at one time, the Rondo neighborhood and presently contains some of the highest concentrations of minority and low-income populations in the metro area.³ (FTA 871–73.)

This case involves alleged inadequacies in the planning of the proposed CCLRT Project. The Project involves approximately 11 miles of light rail line, 9.7 miles of which will run between downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul. (FTA 2–4.) The Project will connect five major activity centers in the Twin Cities, including downtown Minneapolis, the University of Minnesota, the Midway area, the State Capitol complex, and downtown St. Paul. Approximately 1.2 miles of the line will use the existing Hiawatha LRT alignment in downtown Minneapolis and will connect with five existing stations. ( Id. 3, 5.) The CCLRT line will be built primarily along University and Washington Avenues and will include 18 new stations.⁴ ( Id. 617.) In the Midway East area, the project calls for seven new stations along University Avenue in St. Paul, located at Rice Street, Western Avenue, Dale Street, Victoria Street, Lexington Parkway, Hamline Avenue, and Snelling Avenue. ( Id. 609.)

The purpose of the CCLRT Project is “to meet the future transit needs of the Central Corridor LRT study and the Twin Cities metropolitan region and to support the economic development goals for the Central Corridor LRT study area.” (FTA 3–4.) The introduction of “fixed-guideway transit to the Central Corridor” was proposed as a “cost-effective measure aimed at improving mobility by offering an alternative to auto travel for commuting and discretionary trips.” ( Id.)

Over the past three decades, the Central Corridor has been the subject of several transportation studies that have analyzed the feasibility of mass transit options in the area. ( Id. 3516.) For example, in 1999, the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority (“RCRRA”) initiated the Central Corridor Transit Study to explore transit options for the corridor. ( Id. 3516.) The study evaluated cost effectiveness, mobility and accessibility, and the community and environmental benefits of several transit options. ( Id.) This study relied on previous transit studies and outlined goals and options for the Central Corridor. Tiered screening resulted in three potential options: University Avenue Light Rail Transit (“LRT”), University Avenue Busway/Bus Rapid Transit, and I–94 LRT Alternative. ( Id. 7166, 5057.)

In 2001, the RCRRA prepared and issued the Central Corridor Scoping Booklet, the purpose of which was to identify transportation alternatives to be evaluated in an EIS. ( Id. 7162.) The scoping decision eliminated the I–94 LRT option and advanced the following options for environmental review: (1) No–Build; (2) Transportation Systems Management; (3) Busway/Bus Rapid Transit; and (4) University Avenue LRT. ( Id. 7162–7163.) ⁵

In April 2006, the Agencies published the Central Corridor Alternatives Analysis and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“AA/DEIS”). The AA/DEIS proposed two build alternatives—a LRT or Busway Rapid Transit for the Central Corridor. ( Id. 5056.) The AA/DEIS contained an analysis of the purpose of and need for such a project, alternatives to the two projects, and the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the projects. Specifically, the AA/DEIS noted that the project goals of the CCLRT were: (1) economic opportunity and investment; (2) communities and environment; and (3) transportation and mobility. ( Id. 5059.) After the publication of the AA/DEIS, there was a public comment period.

During the public comment period, more than 570 people attended four public meetings and more than 900 parties (people, agencies, and organizations) commented on the AA/DEIS.⁶ (FTA 6, 3940–3941.) Some comments were directed at the impacts that the CCLRT would have on the Rondo community that was displaced in the 1960s as a result of the I–94 project and during “urban renewal” policies of the 1970s. Other comments expressed concern regarding the effects of gentrification on minority populations and the need for business interruption mitigation for low-income and African–American businesses impacted during construction. The comments received influenced the identification of “key issues” for resolution, including analysis of additional LRT stations at Hamline Avenue, Victoria Street, and Western Avenue; analysis of parking impacts; analysis and identification of additional pedestrian crossings on University Avenue; reconstruction of sidewalks and other streetscaping improvements; and formation of a committee representing neighborhoods and communities along the Central Corridor. (FTA 6.)

Upon completion of the public hearings, the Metropolitan Council (who replaced the RCRRA as the lead agency on the CCLRT Project) adopted the AA/DEIS Locally Preferred Alternative for the Central Corridor—the University LRT Alternative. On February 25, 2008, the Agencies published a notice of intent to prepare a Supplemental DEIS (“SDEIS”). The SDEIS was intended to communicate changes to the CCLRT, including the potential additional/infill stations at Hamline Avenue, Victoria Street, and/or Western Avenue. (FTA 3513, 3519–3524.) The Agencies again received public comments, including comments that addressed the displacing effect of the CCLRT, business interruption, and potential cumulative impacts on the Rondo community. The comment period for the SDEIS occurred during summer 2008, during which three public hearings took place. The Agencies received approximately 70 comments on the SDEIS. The comments led to, among other things, the addition of below-grade infrastructure for three infill stations at Hamline Avenue, Victoria Street, and Western Avenue. ( Id. 6.)

The CCLRT Final EIS (“FEIS”) was published on June 26, 2009. (FTA 7.) The FEIS totals approximately 2,800 pages and incorporates both the...