Friends of Capital Crescent Trail v. Federal Transit Administration

The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration or clarification. The court said it had already considered the plaintiffs' noise and air pollution arguments. In particular, the court indicated that the defendants had "reasonably considered the energy consumption and emissions impact" of the project and its alternatives.

The plaintiffs filed a motion seeking clarification or confirmation that the district court had rejected the plaintiffs' claims regarding certain deficiencies in the noise and air pollution analyses in the environmental review. The plaintiffs had alleged that the environmental impact statement did not assess the project's level of energy use and resulting pollution, including carbon dioxide emissions.