Title 23 23 USC 128 – Format for Public Hearing. The plaintiffs argued that the public hearing held by WisDOT did not satisfy the “public hearing” requirement in 23 USC 128, because WisDOT’s hearing used an open-house format rather than a traditional public-hearing format in which attendees have an opportunity to speak to an audience. The court found that the opportunity provided within the open-house format was enough to satisfy 23 USC 128: While the record demonstrates that defendants structured the hearing as an open house, without contemplating public input, it is undisputed that plaintiffs and other individuals of the public were allowed to and did speak at the event, albeit on a more limited basis than plaintiffs desired. In particular, the undisputed record indicated that attendees—including plaintiff Raj Bhandari—publicly voiced concerns to and asked questions of the WisDOT officials in attendance. According to the administrative record, public questions and comments lasted approximately 30 minutes. On this record, the court finds “substantial compliance” with the public hearing requirement. The court also held that, even if the open-house hearing did not satisfy 23 USC 128, the plaintiffs “cannot demonstrate that they were prejudiced by this, nor that requiring a do-over would be anything except an empty victory.” The court noted that plaintiffs had multiple opportunities for input throughout the process, “ensuring that the planners took close account of the objectives and desires of individual citizens affected by the projects during the planning process.” Therefore, the court rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to WisDOT’s compliance with the public hearing requirement in 23 USC 168. 23 USC 128 – Public Hearing Transcript. The plaintiffs also argued that WisDOT had violated 23 USC 128 by failing to prepare a transcript of the public hearing and submit it to FHWA. The court said it was “troubled” by the failure to prepare a transcript, but held that plaintiffs had failed to provide any credible evidence that they were prejudiced by the lack of a transcript. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted (1) WisDOT had entered into an agreement with FHWA, under which responsibility for oversight of compliance with 23 USC 128 had been assigned to WisDOT, and (2) WisDOT officials responsible for overseeing compliance with the public hearing requirement had personally attended the hearing. The court also noted that “record also shows more generally that WisDOT officials were well aware of and considered public opposition to the project, including to the lack of on and off ramps from U.S. Highway 51 after construction of an overpass at the former, four-way intersection with County Highway C.” Therefore, the court found that the lack of a transcript did not result in a violation of 23 USC 128. Other Laws Interchange Spacing. The plaintiffs argued that WisDOT’s interchange spacing guidelines did not provide a sufficient basis for WisDOT’s decision to deny their request for an interchange, because WisDOT had allowed interchanges in other locations that did not comply with the guidelines. The court noted that the guidelines generally require at least two miles between interchanges, and in this instance the closest interchange was 1.5 miles away. The court held that “the fact that WisDOT may have allowed ramps within two miles with respect to a different, ten-year-old highway construction project does not mean that it acted arbitrarily in following its guideline with respect to this Project.”