Metro Rail Funds Put on Temporary Hold by U.S. Judge

A U.S. District judge in Washington, warning that the first segment of Los Angeles’ Metro Rail project could become “an enormous ‘white elephant’ ” because of uncertainties about extension of the transit line, on Friday temporarily blocked release of federal funds to begin construction.

The unexpected court order, issued at the request of two Los Angeles groups that have long opposed the transit project, is another potentially serious obstacle in the long up-and-down history of the project. But it does not necessarily mean construction, set to begin later this month, will be stalled. Southern California Rapid Transit District officials expressed confidence that the judge’s order will be dropped after a full court hearing set in Washington for Sept. 24.

Proceeding With Plans

“We are proceeding with plans for the ground breaking on Sept. 29,” said RTD spokesman Jim Smart.

Judge Joyce Hens Green released an order Friday, after hearing arguments Thursday, barring the federal Urban Mass Transportation Administration from taking any action to release $225.6 million in funds needed to begin building the first 4.4-mile subway segment of the line from downtown to Wilshire Boulevard and Alvarado Street.

Those funds were about to be provided under a contract signed by Reagan Administration and local transit officials last week. However, there are no federal funding agreements for sections of the line that are planned through the Wilshire Corridor and to Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley.

Taxpayers Watchdog Inc., a Van Nuys-based group formed to support passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, and Rapid Transit Advocates Inc., an anti-Metro Rail group that has previously filed court challenges to the project, joined in the suit challenging the adequacy of the environmental impact statement that UMTA approved for the project.

Seeking an Injunction

The groups argued that the environmental statement is insufficient because it does not address Westside route changes now being studied by the RTD to avoid tunneling through areas of potentially hazardous methane gas concentrations. They are seeking an injunction preventing the release of federal funds until the alignment of the route is settled and a new statement is prepared for the entire project.

UMTA attorneys argued that a new environmental statement is not needed. They said the environmental problems with the first segment have been found to be insignificant and contended that assessment would not change even if later extensions are altered.

But Green ruled that the project must be considered as a whole. “While it may be that construction of (the first leg) will entail no adverse environmental consequences, the environmental impact of the larger system . . . may be such that, on balance, no subway system would be preferable,” she said.

“If such a determination were made after construction (of the first section) was commenced or completed, the city could well find itself with an enormous ‘white elephant’ on its hands.”

Eunice McTyre, a spokeswoman for Taxpayers Watchdog, said her group has strongly opposed the project, which she termed a “boondoggle.” She said the court action was filed now because “we’re down to the wire . . . they’re about to dig the hole.”

Charles Hartman, a Los Angeles partner in the New York-based firm of Rogers & Wells, which is representing the Metro Rail opponents, cited the language of the judge’s 11-page order in predicting that his clients would prevail in requiring a new environmental impact statement--a study that could delay construction a year or more. Rogers & Wells also represents Rapid Transit Advocates, which favors a rapid transit system but opposes Metro Rail, in a three-year-old state court suit challenging the Metro Rail environmental statement on different grounds.

Hartman and McTyre refused to discuss who was paying for the legal challenge.

RTD’s Smart said the issues raised in the latest suit have all been aired, debated and carefully considered by Congress, which has continued to appropriate funding. RTD attorneys will be allowed to file arguments in the case before the Sept. 24 hearing.