Thursday, July 29, 2004
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Lawsuit delays new lane work on U.S. 95

Ruling on possible pollution problems might not come for months

Traffic moves on U.S. Highway 95 between the Rancho Drive and Valley View Boulevard exits on Wednesday. A court ordered major portions of a $370 million lane-widening project delayed while it considers a lawsuit alleging pollution problems with the plan. Photo by K.M. Cannon.

If you've been praying for traffic relief in the form of added lanes on car-choked U.S. Highway 95, your wait is getting a bit longer.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco this week ordered major portions of a $370 million lane-widening project delayed while it considers a Sierra Club lawsuit alleging pollution problems with the plan.

The order, received Wednesday by the Nevada Department of Transportation, should not stop about $77 million in ongoing and soon-to-start sound wall, drainage system and path-clearing work along U.S. 95.

But it will postpone $160 million in new lane construction between the Spaghetti Bowl and the Rainbow Curve, which was slated to start around September and would eventually widen the six-lane road to 10 lanes, according to the Nevada Department of Transportation.

That delay, likely to last at least until a final ruling is handed down by the court late this year or early next year, is almost certain to imperil the project's target completion date of late 2006 and as many as 300 jobs.

"We feel confident we'll move forward with the project with a minimum of delays. We're confident we're doing the right thing," said Greg Bortolin, a spokesman for Gov. Kenny Guinn, who has strongly supported the work plan.

"The irony of the Sierra Club delaying this project is that they're delaying our ability to mitigate the air quality issues," Bortolin said.

If people are angry the project gets delayed, he said, "maybe they need to direct their ire in the direction of the Sierra Club."

Sierra Club attorney Joanne Spalding said her group doesn't intend to antagonize drivers. Rather, it wants to ensure an adequate balance of needs between commuters and residents along U.S. 95 by mandating a light-rail line or other pollution-lessening options.

"Like everyone else, we want to get this issue resolved as soon as possible. We think there are portions of the project that can move forward now," Spalding said. "That's why we've been very interested in talking to the Nevada Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration about finding some common ground on this.

"We're really sympathetic to people who want to get to where they're going. It would be nice if they had ways to get around, other than going by car," Spalding said.

Regardless of which side ultimately wins, community planning and transit officials rue the holdup in unclogging the link between downtown Las Vegas and the fast-growing northwest valley.

"Because the demand for transportation solutions in Southern Nevada is increasing daily, any potential delay in any transportation project is undesirable," said Ingrid Reisman, spokeswoman for the Regional Transportation Commission.

Transportation Department spokesman Scott Magruder said he expected the delay to last several months, during which work would slow, but not stop altogether while the court moved toward a final decision.

More than $47 million in work has been completed to date.

"The court hasn't set a specific date" to hear the appeal, Spalding said. She guessed a final ruling would come no sooner than December or January.

Also unclear was the court order itself. Though it called for a halt in "the widening project," it did not define what segments of work can be considered as such, leaving it up to the parties to define "widening" work, which must stop and other work that could continue.

"We certainly don't have any problems with sound walls. The right-of-way they've acquired, that could be used for other alternatives" such as light rail or a buffer zone between highway and homes, Spalding said. "The physical widening is what we're concerned with. Once those lanes are paved, there will be cars on it in short order."

The Transportation Department has consulted with the attorney general's office in determining what ongoing work is acceptable, Macgruder said.

The brief three-paragraph ruling also did not cite a rationale.

"There's no reason here," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Ray Rukstele, who represents government agencies in the case. The ruling is of interest to various area construction firms that hold or hope to gain millions of dollars worth of contracts, and laborers whose jobs are on the line.

"It's a concern, obviously, but we're going to keep proceeding (with) business as usual until NDOT tells us something different," said Shane Haycock, chief estimator for Meadow Valley Contractors Inc., which plans to employ 100 workers while performing $20 million in drainage system and sound wall work that starts next month.

But Michael Pack, president of project contractor Frehner Construction Co., said as many as 300 current or planned jobs could be lost due to the delays. His company currently employs up to 200 people on U.S. 95 work.

"Hopefully, we'll pick up other projects. To be honest, that part of the project, we had our sights on," he said. "Jobs are going to be lost because this project is not going forward."

The work hold is a significant hurdle to a project Bortolin said "is probably at the top of the governor's agenda." Earlier, Guinn ordered work to be sped up because of explosive increase in congestion on U.S. 95.

That stretch of highway, which had as few as 25,000 daily drivers in the early 1970s, currently carries about 200,000 cars and trucks each day and is expected to have 300,000 daily commuters by 2010.

The original lawsuit alleged that the government disregarded information indicating that the project could sharply heighten the risk of cancer for people living, working and going to school along U.S. 95.

Attorneys for the government have said credible tests do not exist to validate those claims.

The lawsuit was thrown out in March by U.S. District Judge Philip Pro, who ruled federal officials were "reasonably thorough" and "not arbitrary and capricious" in drawing up and reviewing the U.S. 95 plan.

The Sierra Club then appealed to the 9th Circuit. In July, Pro refused to order the U.S. 95 project halted pending appeal, noting "the Las Vegas public incurs substantial time and resource losses due to congestion on the unwidened portion of U.S. 95." That decision also was appealed.

At that time, the club argued that if work wasn't stopped until the appeal is heard, "the human environment and public health would be compromised and the appeal would become meaningless."

"The main issue for us is the health of residents near U.S. 95," Spalding said.

Rukstele said he is unsure whether he will ask the appeals court to reconsider its stance. "We can petition for reconsideration. Whether or not that occurs is under discussion now," he said.

Some drivers were unhappy with the news. "Bad idea," Rachel Jackson, 28, of Las Vegas, a daily U.S. 95 commuter said while gassing up her car at a Rancho Drive gas station near the highway. "It's a growing city. We need bigger freeways.

"There's more pollution with all the cars sitting there with it not widened than if there were more lanes and you were getting where you want to go," she said.

Agreed, said Stephani Milloy, 50, of Las Vegas. "You have to do it. Too many people live up there," she said. "Don't stop. Just suffer through it. Do it and get past it. You can't halt progress."