Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated Section 4(f)of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 by failing to select a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative, i.e., rehabilitation. In furtherance of the latter, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ selection was based on inaccurate and inconsistent data regarding the relative costs of rehabilitation versus building a new bridge. In addition, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ rejection of Rehabilitation Alternative 3 based on the "Service life Cycle" estimated service life and construction costs of “extraordinary magnitudes” is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and lacks support in the record.
The Court disagreed with all but one of Plaintiffs (Appellant) arguments. The Court found that the record adequately supports the construction and maintenance cost attributed to each alternative. Regarding the choice of cost estimate methodology, however, the Court found that FHWA and MaineDOT did not provide a basis for forgoing the generally accepted Life Cycle Cost Analysis methodology for the Service Life Cycle Estimate methodology, which is relatively unknown.