Arlington's Response -- On Aug. 4, 2011, in response to Virginia Transportation Secretary Connaughton's comments in the July 19 edition of the Examiner newspaper, the County Board issued a letter to Gov. McDonnell that sets the record straight. Read the letter (PDF).
Court Grants County's Requested Dismissal of Lawsuit -- on April 5, 2011, the federal court granted the County's motion and dismissed our case. The case was dismissed for the reasons stated by the County, i.e., that the case was now moot because the project is no longer being built in Arlington. The Commonwealth also requested the Federal Highway Administration to rescind the categorical exclusion, which had previously been approved for the project, and which the County maintained had been improperly granted.
Former Secretary Homer's Motion Denied -- On July 1, 2011, the court denied Mr. Homer’s motion, ruling that Mr. Homer was not a “prevailing party” to the original lawsuit. Mr. Homer had sought repayment of attorneys' fees as a "prevailing party" in the suit.
Arlington County Board Withdrawing HOT Lanes Lawsuit — On Feb. 8, 2011, The County Board announced it will withdraw its lawsuit on the proposed I-95/395 High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes project. Details in press release.
Arlington County HOT Lanes Stance Vindicated by VDOT Decision to Redesign Project — On Feb. 3, 2011, Arlington County Board Chairman Christopher Zimmerman welcomed VDOT's announcement that it is pursuing a new, more limited High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes project on I-95 that will undergo an in-depth environmental analysis. Details in press release.
Background: In August, 2009, the Arlington County Board filed suit in United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the United States Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Commonwealth of Virginia over the proposed High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes project for I-95/395. The suit alleges that the FHWA and the Commonwealth failed to meet necessary requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Clean Air Act before FHWA approved a Categorical Exclusion for the project.