does require that the segmented portion is a reasonable expenditure....” W. N.C. Alliance v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 312 F.Supp.2d 765, 774 (E.D.N.C.2003) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). For example, a plan to build a highway loop around a metropolitan area may be segmented for NEPA evaluation because each part of the loop has substantial independent utility in relieving traffic congestion, even if the maximum utility of that segment will not be achieved until the entire loop is completed. See N.C. Alliance for Transp. Reform, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 151 F.Supp.2d 661, 683 (M.D.N.C.2001). Furthermore, the replacement of a structure that is nearing the end of its service life has been found to have independent utility. See Highway J Citizens Grp., 349 F.3d at 963 (<HOLDING>). In this case, defendants chose to replace a
recognizing temporal proximity as important factor holding that the most important factor in the preservation hierarchy is whether the relevant issue was raised in the trial court and the least important factor is whether the appellant alerted the trial court to the specific argument raised on appeal recognizing that the third factor permanence is the most important recognizing that independent utility is the most important factor and that replacement of a bridge for safety purposes had independent utility from widening the connecting highway recognizing that the most important factor in determining whether a governmental entity is entitled to eleventh amendment immunity is whether a judgment against it would be paid from the state treasury