Neighborhood Ass'n of the Back Bay v. Federal Transit Administration
407 F. Supp. 2d 323, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37591, 2005 WL 3588421 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court will not overturn a federal agency's decision under the National Historic Preservation Act and the Department of Transportation Act if the agency has procedurally complied with the statutes' requirements to consult with interested parties and consider the project's effects, and its substantive conclusions are not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
Facts:
- Copley Station, a historic subway station not compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), is located within Boston's Back Bay Historic District, near National Historic Landmarks such as the Boston Public Library and the Old South Church.
- To comply with an ADA mandate, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) initiated the 'Copley Station Accessibility Improvement Project' to install elevators and headhouses for handicap accessibility.
- The MBTA developed and analyzed several design options for the new elevators, ultimately rejecting most as infeasible due to engineering, economic, or ADA compliance issues.
- Throughout the planning process, the MBTA held multiple meetings and consulted with representatives from the Boston Public Library, the Old South Church, the Massachusetts Historic Commission (MHC), and the Boston Landmarks Commission (BLC) to discuss design options and potential impacts.
- After incorporating feedback from these consultations, the MBTA selected a final design that included placing a new inbound elevator on the granite side steps of the Boston Public Library.
- The Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay (NABB) met with the MBTA to voice concerns and proposed alternative elevator locations, several of which the MBTA had previously determined were not feasible.
- A preservation consultant hired by the MBTA prepared a comprehensive review which concluded that the primary effect of the project on the adjacent historic properties would be a visual one.
Procedural Posture:
- The Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay, Inc. and the Boston Preservation Alliance, Inc. (Plaintiffs) filed a motion for a preliminary and final injunction against the Federal Transit Administration and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (Defendants).
- The action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which is a federal trial court.
- Plaintiffs sought an injunction to prohibit the disbursement and use of federal funds for the Copley Station Accessibility Improvement Project.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal agency's approval of a transportation project to make a historic subway station ADA-compliant violate the National Historic Preservation Act and the Department of Transportation Act when the agency consulted with relevant parties, documented its findings, and concluded the project would have 'no adverse effect' on surrounding historic properties?
Opinions:
Majority - Tauro, District Judge
No. The Federal Transit Administration's approval of the project does not violate federal historic preservation laws because the agency satisfied its procedural obligations to 'stop, look, and listen,' and its substantive findings were not arbitrary or capricious. Under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the FTA properly identified historic properties and consulted extensively with the State Historic Preservation Officer (the MHC), the Library, the Church, and the public. The plaintiffs were not formal 'consulting parties' as they never requested this status, but their views were still considered. The FTA's finding of 'no adverse effect' was based on a rational review of the administrative record. As this finding was proper, the higher procedural standards of NHPA Section 110(f) were not triggered. Under the Department of Transportation Act (DOTA), the FTA correctly identified the elevator on the Library's steps as a direct 'use' of historic property but reasonably concluded there was no 'prudent and feasible alternative' that would also satisfy the ADA's accessibility goals. The FTA also correctly found no 'constructive use' for the rest of the project, a finding supported by the 'no adverse effect' determination under the NHPA.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the highly deferential 'arbitrary and capricious' standard of review that federal courts apply to administrative agency actions. It reinforces that compliance with procedural statutes like the NHPA focuses on the agency's decision-making process—requiring it to 'stop, look, and listen'—rather than mandating a specific substantive outcome like preservation above all other concerns. The decision clarifies the interplay between the NHPA and DOTA, establishing that a proper agency finding of 'no adverse effect' under the NHPA can preclude a finding of 'constructive use' under DOTA. The ruling sets a precedent that when federal mandates like the ADA conflict with historic preservation goals, an agency's reasoned balancing of these interests, supported by a comprehensive administrative record, is likely to be upheld.
