Category Archives: Mid-County Bridge

Bridge ‘Idea-Gathering’ Meeting NOT Advertised to Public

Posted on by

Bridge ‘idea-gathering’ meeting not advertised to public

By Cindy Beamon

The Daily Advance

Sunday, September 18, 2011

 

CURRITUCK — The behind-the-scenes “idea gathering” meeting earlier this month on the mid-Currituck bridge’s design was not intended for the public, says a spokeswoman for the state agency overseeing the project.

The session hosted by the N.C. Turnpike Authority in Currituck included commissioners from three counties, two state legislators and a host of other business and county leaders.

Despite the high profile invitation list and the span’s $660 million price tag, the meeting was not advertised to the public.

A public meeting on the bridge’s design will be advertised later when the Turnpike Authority is ready to present its ideas, said Greer Beaty, communications director for the N.C. Department of Transportation, the agency which oversees the Turnpike Authority.

“They are not even to the point where they have pictures or designs for people to respond to,” Beaty said.

State law did not require that the meeting be publicly advertised because the group is not a decision-making body.

Neither was a majority from any of the county boards present, which would have required public notice. Three commissioners attended from Currituck.

Had four attended, the county would have been legally required to advertise the session. Elected officials from Duck and Southern Shores also attended.

In addition to the elected officials, the invited group represented a mix of interests, including wildlife, economic development, the Currituck Chamber of Commerce, the Currituck Historic Society, tourism, engineers, the sheriff, county manager, other county staff members, and the project’s private investor, ACS Infrastructure Development.

State Rep. Bill Owens, D-Pasquotank, said he didn’t know that the meeting had not been advertised.

Currituck Commissioner Paul O’Neal said he would have welcomed the public to the meeting. The state, not the county, set up the session, and O’Neal said he was not aware who would be attending until he got there.

Beaty said nothing was decided at the meeting.“It really was not a meeting intended to come up with long-term decisions that would be set in stone. It was just a starting point to get some ideas,” she said.

—————————————————————————————————-

How do the “invited” attendees know what Aydlett, Coinjock and Corolla Locals would want to look at every single day if, and that’s a big IF, this project gets built. I, as well as others in the Aydlett community, want to know why our county district representative, Butch Petrey, didn’t insist on having representatives from Coinjock and Aydlett invited to attend the design idea session. Since he stabbed us in the heart with his vote for the bridge project,  he has done nothing for the Aydlett or Coinjock communities to help us through this process.  Then again,  NOTHING about this project has been open or honest.  Webmaster.

 

 

EPA QUESTIONS BRIDGE PROJECT

Posted on by

EPA questions bridge project

Unclear if objections will put halt on project

By Cindy Beamon
Staff Writer
The Daily Advance

Even though state lawmakers have appropriated funding for a
mid-county bridge in Currituck, a federal agency is questioning the
need for the project at all. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says a bridge joining Currituck’s mainland to the Outer Banks would have “significant environmental impacts” and recommends the North Carolina Turnpike Authority rethink its plan to build a $800 million bridge altogether.

Widening U.S. Highway 158 and N.C. Highway 12 would be the better
alternative — both economically and environmentally, said Chris
Militscher, environmental scientist for EPA. Adding a costly, seven-mile bridge across Currituck Sound does not make sense, Militscher said, questioning why it has become the favored option for the Turnpike Authority. “There are reasons behind this that have not been fully discussed,” Militscher said.

Jennifer Harris, director of planning and environmental studies for
the Turnpike Authority, said the bridge is an “important project
for the region and the state” and has long been supported by state
legislators and county leaders. She also says the EPA’s suggestion about upgrades to U.S. 158 and N.C. 12 has one major flaw. Widening the highways may cost less, but it’s “not financially viable,” she said.
No funding is available for the option the EPA is recommending,
Harris said. Without a bridge, the project to ease summer beach
traffic congestion would have no funding, she said.

In June, state lawmakers appropriated $15 million a year for the next three years and $28 million afterward for up to 50 years to subsidize construction for the mid-county bridge project. The state plans to pay for the rest with federal loans and private financing in a public-private partnership with ACS Dragodos, a Spanish bridge building company. Tolls collected from motorists crossing the span are expected to help recoup most of the construction costs while state “gap funds” will pay for the rest.

At the heart of the EPA’s objections to the bridge are questions about its need. The seasonal traffic congestion can best be remedied by widening roads, not by building a costly bridge during economically tight times, Militscher said. A letter from Heinz J. Mueller, chief of the EPA Program Office, to Harris on June 4 makes the same point. “Shrinking transportation dollars and increased maintenance and repair costs for infrastructure in areas that are very vulnerable to severe weather conditions such as high winds and storm surges and salt air and water should be a very important consideration for decision-makers,” the letter states. Mueller also outlines a number of environmental concerns about the project in the letter, part of the federal agency’s official response to the Turnpike Authority’s Draft Environmental Impact statement on the bridge project. Continue reading →