At least two legal challenges were filed Monday against the city’s Albuquerque Rapid Transit (ART) plan, including that the National Historic Preservation Act was violated, plus other state and federal laws.
The Albuquerque Journal reported:
The lawsuits allege that ART would choke traffic along Central Avenue and disrupt the character of old Route 66. Albuquerque is home to the longest urban and intact stretch of what was once Route 66 and many historic buildings are along the route, the suits say. […]
The federal lawsuit alleges the city failed to notify the Federal Transit Administration that ART was likely to generate intense public discussion. The plaintiffs also say the FTA improperly granted the city an exception to the standard requirement of studying the project’s potential environmental impact.
The federal complaint also alleges the city deliberately withheld information about ART from businesses and misled people by claiming the existing buses are full.
The suits were filed for Central Avenue business owners. At least 150 businesses stated their opposition to ART and launched a website against it. They claim the 18-month construction time and reductions in vehicular traffic will hurt their businesses.
The nearly $120 million ART project would carve out two center lanes of nearly 10 miles of Central Avenue, aka Route 66, for buses. The proposal, shepherded by Mayor Richard Berry and passed 7-2 by the city council, would have 80 percent of its cost covered by a federal grant. The idea aims to make Albuquerque more attractive to millennials and cutting-edge companies.
KOB-TV in Albuquerque reported on the historic angle of one of the lawsuits:
“The proposed corridor will require the destruction or impact on well over 48 Historic Landmarks that are registered with the National Historic Registry and the destruction of well over 150 trees of historic and environmental significance to the communities involved,” the draft states.
The ABQ Free Press reported the National Historic Preservation Act requires the city and federal government to do a thorough study of the historic landmarks by the State Historic Preservation Office.
The national law “requires that any federally funded undertaking take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places,” the lawsuit said.
“The consultation with SHPPO in this case consisted of two brief letters and no review at all of the well over 48 sites [along the route]. The City appears to have identified over 150 historic landmarks, yet none of them have been the subject of any significant study and the City has counted on no questions from FTA to the City’s cursory two letters to and with SHPPO because the City has assumed there wold be a wide range of public support. This is not the case.”
The lawsuit asks for a “full review of Historic Landmarks and the impact of the project there-on rather than the illegal cursory indication that no significant impacts would occur with regard to Historic Properties.”
Former city attorney Pete Dinelli hinted last week said the failure of the city to have the Landmarks Commission review the ART proposal could result in legal challenges and result in at least delays to the project.
The city had hoped to begin the ART construction by July. But with a possible injunction, that might be a bit optimistic.
(Artist’s rendering of one of the ART stations)
I knew this project would be difficult because it takes up too much space along the original boulevard and squeezes the normal flow of traffic. You don’t have to rework the street to show off your new busses. Just make sure that the tourist busses and the city busses don’t hinder traffic. That way, everyone will be able to enjoy the mother road.
Good luck in whatever you guys do. Just don’t ruin the original quality of central ave.
Thanx
Good to see some local people oppose this waste of the Highway Trust Fund.