Every transportation improvement project, no matter how simple or complex, is developed in terms of multiple project alternatives. Those alternatives must be examined closely to determine the one that best satisfies the project’s stated needs, balanced against the least possible impact to the area’s economic, historic and environmental resources.

At one end, the "No-Build" alternative is presented to serve as a baseline to determine what should be expected if no action is taken, while at the other end the impacts of a new road on completely new alignment might be examined to determine the greatest possible impact. Major transportation improvements are developed using a two-phased approach. Some choices are dismissed as infeasible up front, while others move to the next phase for further study. Eventually, the option that best satisfies the needs while retaining vital resources will be the alternative selected.

The Federal Highway Administration, in compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, has defined procedures to best determine what those alternatives might be and how they should be developed.

This improvement study of Route 30 can be viewed as an effort to define those particular alternatives. Preliminary alternatives have been developed. This effort has been a joint effort of PennDOT, the Lancaster County Planning Commission, FHWA, McCormick, Taylor & Associates and community representatives.


Two Phases of Alternatives Analysis

Once project needs have been identified, the development and evaluation of improvement options begins. These options or alternatives are developed in two phases. In the first phase, a wide range of preliminary alternatives are identified, some of which may be dismissed from evaluation while others are carried forward for additional study. In the second phase of development, a smaller number of alternatives that have been deemed reasonable is further evaluated in detail. This approach provides a systematic process for choosing the most feasible, reasonable, and practical transportation improvement alternative.

The preliminary alternatives and an assessment of their impacts will be presented at a public meeting, which will take place in late winter 2003. Based on the results of analysis and your input, we will then narrow the range of alternatives to be studied further.

The detailed alternatives phase involves intensive study of a smaller range of improvement options. These alternatives will be modified to avoid or minimize disruptions to significant community and environmental resources. You will be able to review and comment on these modifications at another public meeting and through this website. We will further refine the alternatives based on this input.

At each of the two phases of alternatives analysis we strive to develop transportation facilities that are sensitive to the needs and character of local communities.