Alternative A proposes to impact several residences and commercial businesses as part of an effort to avoid Section 4(f) resources. Is this a viable avoidance alternative? To answer this, several factors must be considered, including the socioeconomic impacts to those resources and the surrounding community. This information is compared to other avoidance alternatives to determine Alternative A's viability. The alignment for Alternative B is successful in avoiding the commercial and residential area; however, it impacts the community park and public school instead. Consequently, Alternative B is no longer an avoidance alternative. (Note that while this public school happens to be a Section 4(f) resource, not all public schools are, necessarily.) Alternative C successfully avoids all Section 4(f) resources, but as a result impacts a forest and a wetland. Avoiding one resource will often result in impacting another, thus the balancing act of comparing different resources in developing a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative. Coordination with DOT and interested agencies (such as wetland regulatory agencies) is necessary to determine whether this alternative can be considered feasible and prudent.

Back