Updated 7/1/2010 -DM

CART has filed a motion to intervene in the National Trust for Historic Preservation & River Field's suit against Ohio River Bridges Project. Here, in Q&A format, are some frequently asked questions about the suit.

Why did CART file suit?

1. NEPA requires all reasonable alternatives to be fully and fairly evaluated in an EIS. FHWA did a preliminary analysis of light rail and found that it would not reasonably meet ORBP's objectives so it was never evaluated as an alternative in the EIS.  FHWA proposed stations inconvenient to commuters and nonsensically had more stations placed in Indiana than Kentucky in the preliminary analysis, treating light rail unfairly.

2. When you invest in a massive captial project backed by federal funding, environmental laws force a review of the project if conditions change. ORBP was designed in the early 90s, when ...

   • oil was around $20 a barrel
   • driving was forecast to increase forever
   • bus public transit was forecast to expand service to keep pace with the new roads
   None of these assumptions turned out to be right, but the FHWA has not appropriately responded to these concerns.

What does it mean that you're "intervening" in a suit?

The National Trust for Historic Preservation and River Fields are other non-profits already engaged in litigation against ORBP. For procedural reasons, it's better to join their suit than start another one. In order to join the suit, CART must show that the first suit does not cover our complaint. My understanding is that their existing complaint revolves around preservation issues in East Louisville. CART's revolves around equity and energy.

Does CART endorse a downtown highway bridge?
Does CART endorse an east end highway bridge?

No. We endorse a re-evaluation of the projects. The fiscal and energy realities have set in. This is not 1994.

What is the timetable?

We expect the judge to rule on our intervention in a matter of weeks.

Attached you can find the text of the intervention.