This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

The Utah Supreme Court forced a detour Thursday for two lawsuits that seek to allow voters to halt a controversial $190 million bus rapid transit (BRT) project in Provo and Orem, which is under construction.

The high court rejected the lawsuits, saying they first should have been considered in district court.

While it noted that petitions regarding voter referendums can be filed directly with the high court when little time exists before a hoped-for election, justices noted the earliest a vote on the BRT project could be held is November 2017 — offering plenty of time for district court review.

"Our plan is to file in district court within 10 days," said Diane Christensen, one of the citizens who filed suits against Provo and Orem.

One of the reasons that citizen groups had hoped that the Supreme Court would order an election quickly is that could have stopped ongoing construction by the Utah Transit Authority before so much money is spent that voters would balk at attempts to halt it.

But in oral arguments two weeks ago, Justice Deno Himonas said if the Supreme Court kept the lawsuits, a good chance existed that it would rule against the referendums on procedural grounds rather than on their merits. He said review by a lower court could avoid that.

Himonas also said the district court would be more likely to issue an injunction to temporarily halt the project during its review.

Attorneys for Provo and Orem also had favored a quick ruling by the high court. Attorney Robert Hughes, representing Provo, said in oral arguments that the threat a voter referendum could kill the BRT line "puts a cloud on the project," which is why the city wanted a quick resolution.

"And there would be a bigger cloud if a district judge places an injunction" to halt construction during lower-court review, Himonas said during oral arguments. Christensen said citizen groups will re-file and seek such an injunction.

"We are pleased the court made its ruling so quickly. Less than two weeks is lightning fast for the Supreme Court," Christensen said. "Once they telegraphed in oral arguments that they thought the matter would be better heard in district court, this was the ruling we needed: dismissal without prejudice," to allow re-filing.

At issue are two no-cost leases approved by city councils in Provo and Orem to allow UTA to use some city streets for the project, including for dedicated bus lanes or other facilities such as bus stops.

The Utah Constitution allows citizens to collect signatures to force an election to overturn any legislative action by a city council, and citizen groups say approval of those leases qualifies.

But the two cities argue the lease approvals were administrative actions not subject to referendum. They rejected referendum signatures collected by the citizen groups, which prompted the lawsuits.

Meanwhile, the UTA Board in July approved launching the controversial project immediately, proceeding without $23.8 million in advance funding that it says federal and county government almost surely will reimburse later.

Earlier this month, UTA also unveiled its proposed budget for next year, which includes $120 million for the project — showing construction could be well advanced or nearly finished before any vote in November 2017.

UTA describes BRT as "TRAX on rubber wheels," where passengers must buy tickets in advance. Extra-long buses would have bus-only lanes for about half their 10.5-mile route.

They may receive priority at traffic signals and would arrive about every six minutes at peak times.

The route would include Utah Valley University, University Mall, Brigham Young University, downtown Provo and the Provo Towne Centre mall.

Opponents say the project is too expensive and will constrict other traffic for a BRT system they say will be used lightly.

Officials defend the project, saying it will help reduce congestion and air pollution in the long term.