WASHINGTON DC – An effort by Delray community groups and the owners of the Ambassador Bridge to challenge a federal decision to locate the U.S. landing site for a new Detroit River bridge in the downriver Detroit neighborhood was rejected by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday.

The decision, in Latin Americans for Social and Economic Development v. Federal Highway Administration (USCOA docket No. 12-556) upheld the district court decision affirming the siting decision.

The appellate decision, written by Ohio U.S. District Judge David Dowd, and joined by Chief Judge Alice Batchelder and Judge Danny Boggs, rejected the claims by the community groups and the Detroit International Bridge Company that the decision by the federal agency – made after numerous studies, hearings and consideration of several alternative plans – violated the National Environmental Protection Act and principles of economic justice.

Neighborhood activists in Delray and other Detroit neighborhoods have long complained about truck traffic now heading towards the Ambassador Bridge.

Putting the landing site for the new bridge – called by the court in the case the Detroit River International Crossing (which is the preferred reference in Canada) and by Governor Rick Snyder the New International Trade Crossing – in Delray has also raised worries about the loss of houses and commercial buildings, as well as about splitting the area that long was home to thriving Eastern European communities and now is home to many Hispanics and minorities.

The Detroit International Bridge Company has fought the DRIC/NITC, charging it would economically cripple the Ambassador Bridge. The company has also fought for the right to build a second span next to its current bridge.

Construction on the new bridge – which has been subject to agreements by the state, the federal government and Canadian government – has not begun, although Canadian officials have issued requests for proposals on some engineering aspects. The bridge is not forecast to be completed until 2020.

The court ruled that arguments the agency violated the NEPA on a variety of issues, including determining the bridge would be publicly owned and rejecting several so-called no build options, were without merit.

Activists charged that the siting decision also violated economic justice principles because the agency rejected some plans that could have sited the landing area further south of Detroit in cities with larger white populations.

But the court, which raised questions whether an appeal on the principle of economic justice could be made, said the record clearly showed that economic justice principles were upheld. There were several hearings on the issue in the area allowing for local concerns to be raised, the court said, and in terms of what made the most engineering sense on where to locate the bridge site, the agency acted appropriately in its decision.

This story was provided by Gongwer News Service. To subscribe, click on Gongwer.Com