Category Archives: Mid-Currituck Bridge

S.E.L.C. Press Release

Posted on by

Local Residents, Hunters, and Fishermen Outraged by Approval of $500M Mid-Currituck Bridge

CHAPEL HILL, N.C.– Local residents from the Currituck mainland and the northern Outer Banks—along with hunters, fishermen, and wildlife enthusiasts from the North Carolina Wildlife Federation—reacted with dismay when the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) announced late Friday that it had signed a legal approval for the $500 million Mid-Currituck Bridge. The Southern Environmental Law Center represents the groups and has written multiple letters over the years calling into question the need for the bridge and the adequacy of the agencies’ environmental review for the project.   

The $500 million proposed bridge would stretch from Aydlett on the Currituck mainland across the environmentally-sensitive Currituck Sound to Corolla on the Outer Banks. The bridge would lead to growth in undisturbed areas along the Northern Outer Banks, along with increased pollution, thus harming important wildlife habitat in the area. The highly controversial bridge has failed to gain necessary legal approvals to move forward for the past 40 years. It would cause significant damage to the Currituck Sound, and its pricey tolls—by some estimates up to $50 during peak summer months—render the project only usable by wealthy tourists.   

Despite receiving this approval from the Federal Highway Administration, NCDOT has been unable to present a viable financial plan to pay for the bridge. The new document shows that NCDOT predicts a drop in long-term traffic expectations, calling into question the agency’s claimed need for the bridge. Less traffic would also mean less toll revenue going toward the cost of the bridge. As a result, the bridge may consume all state transportation funding for North Carolina’s Northern coastal region for years to come.  

Approval of this expensive bridge is particularly disappointing in light of Governor Cooper’s recent statements and executive order noting the importance of resiliency in the face of climate change,” said SELC Attorney Kym Hunter. “Not only will this bridge encourage more development in a stretch of North Carolina that will soon be underwater, but it diverts funding away from other needed road improvements in coastal North Carolina that are increasingly vulnerable to flooding.”

The groups are particularly concerned with the lack of transparency surrounding the approval process. There has been no public analysis of the bridge and no opportunity for the public to weigh in on options since 2012. Despite the significant changes and new information that has come to light in the intervening years, NCDOT has chosen to avoid a public process and engage in closed door decision-making instead.

Among the new information NCDOT has ignored is a study, presented by the groups last year, looking at a suite of less costly alternative transportation solutions for the Northern Outer Banks. The proposal includes minimal road widening along key congested stretches of NC 12, a redesigned interchange between NC 12 and 158, and the conversion of signalized intersections to roundabouts, as well as programs designed to reduce transportation demand, such as incentives for staggered check-out days at vacation rental homes, and an “electronic key” program that would eliminate unnecessary trips to centralized vacation rental offices.

The alternative solution was designed to ease peak congestion days, which occur primarily on summer weekends, at drastically less cost to taxpayers and the environment than the proposed bridge. The approach also could be implemented much sooner than the proposed bridge.

The Southern Environmental Law Center is currently reviewing the NCDOT’s approval documents and coordinating with its clients about next steps.

                                                                           ###

No Mid-Currituck Bridge is comprised of residents of and visitors to the Currituck mainland and Outer Banks who oppose the Mid-Currituck Bridge.  NoMCB strives to protect the unique natural environment of the Currituck mainland and the Outer Banks that hundreds of thousands of visitors come to experience and enjoy every year. 

North Carolina Wildlife Federation is a 501 © 3 nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection, conservation, and restoration of North Carolina wildlife and habitat since 1945.

For more than 30 years, the Southern Environmental Law Center has used the power of the law to champion the environment of the Southeast. With more than 80 attorneys and nine offices across the region, SELC is widely recognized as the Southeast’s foremost environmental organization and regional leader. SELC works on a full range of environmental issues to protect our natural resources and the health and well-being of all the people in our region. www.SouthernEnvironment.org

Senators Trade Barbs As Altered DOT Letter Probed

Posted on by

Carolina Journal News Reports

Officials claim letter reversing department funding position was a mistake

Jun. 28th, 2012

 
RALEIGH – Sparks flew during a Wednesday Senate committee meeting after a top aide to Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue said that he never intended to alter the opinion of a top Department of Transportation official when he changed a letter about the timing for money on two toll projects.Democratic Sens. Dan Blue of Wake County and Martin Nesbitt of Buncombe County objected to what they called “one-sided cross-examination” of two DOT employees who spoke before the Senate Rules Committee.“That’s outrageous,” Nesbitt said. “I don’t think anything justifies what I had to sit here and watch this morning.”“OK, you had your say, and I’ll have mine,” Sen. Tom Apodaca, R-Henderson, responded. Apodaca is the Senate Rules Committee chairman.

Apodaca said that in the 10 years he’s been in the Senate, he’d never seen the type of events as those that occurred this year. He was referring to instances in which electronic signatures of the DOT’s chief operating officer, Jim Trogdon, was placed on two altered letters. The alterations said the opposite of what Trogdon had written earlier.

“That doesn’t work in my world,” Apodaca said. “And I certainly hope it doesn’t work in y’all’s world.”

Before the senators’ remarks, Kevin McLaughlin, Perdue’s deputy chief of staff, and two DOT employees, Susan Coward, a deputy secretary, and Vicki Stanley, Trogdon’s executive assistant, gave their account of what happened June 14, when Trogdon’s letters were altered and the digital signature was applied. Trogdon was in Charlotte that morning and was participating at an event that made him unavailable to discuss revisions to his letters.

Trogdon had said that money for the two toll projects — the Mid-Currituck Bridge on the Outer Banks and the Garden Parkway in Gaston and Mecklenburg counties – would not be needed in the 2012-13 budget because anticipated litigation over the projects would prevent construction from beginning until the following fiscal year.

McLaughlin told committee members that he felt that Trogdon’s letter needed to be altered so that money would be available for the projects in case the litigation did not occur or in case the disputes were settled early.

Sen. Buck Newton, R-Wilson, questioned McLaughlin about the changes.

“Is it customary for you guys in the governor’s office to send someone over to an agency to alter positions when you don’t agree with what they’ve already written?” Newton asked.

“I would hope you are not saying that this process was altering someone’s position,” McLaughlin said. He said he was seeking a clarification.

“It seems quite clear to me that’s exactly what happened,” Newton said.

McLaughlin said he did not discuss the changes in the letters with Perdue until after news reports brought the controversy to light.

Coward and Stanley detailed their roles in making the changes in Trogdon’s letters. They said they were made after Pryor Gibson, a former Anson County Democratic representative and currently Perdue’s top legislative aide, requested the change.

Both said the changes were a mistake and apologized for them. Neither said that they were pressured to make changes, but did say that they felt an urgency to get the letter out.

“In haste, a mistake was made,” Coward said.

Apodaca said he expects the committee to take up the issue again Thursday, as it decides its next course of action. He said he expected a “spirited debate” at that meeting.

Barry Smith is an associate editor of Carolina Journal.

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.

 

 

N.C. Off Course In Singling Out Chesapeake’s Expressway Toll

Posted on by

By Roger Chesley
The Virginian-Pilot
© June 27, 2011

THE Tar Heel state is spoiling for a fight with its northern neighbor. My question: Will one city in the Old Dominion respond in the same self-centered way? It will be tempted to. In May, the toll on the Chesapeake Expressway rose from $2 year-round to $6 on summer weekends. It’s now $3 weekdays and off-season.
The toll hadn’t been changed since the $116 million expressway opened in 2001. City officials said the extra money is needed to repay debt and finance expressway repairs. Chesapeake officials built the route because travelers to the Outer Banks used to cause massive summertime backups on South Battlefield Boulevard that stretched all the way to Great Bridge. Residents who lived along the road were virtually held hostage in their homes on the weekends.
After the rate hike was announced this spring, North Carolina tourism and economic development officials quickly pointed out ways to evade the higher rates. So travelers could save a few bucks, but they might get stuck in congestion before they even reached North Carolina. If time is money, that’s a costly trade-off.
A Currituck County official said in April that the county would alert residents and tourists about the rate hike. Outer Banks tourism officials updated a website (www.outerbanks.org) showing how travelers could avoid the toll. The main alternative is South Battlefield.
“It’s unfair to place that burden on the visitors,” Lee Nettles, managing director of the Outer Banks Visitors Bureau, told me Friday. “It seems blatantly targeted on Outer Banks visitors.”
Funny, but the website doesn’t list any detours for other states along the East Coast. What, there’s no need to miss tolls in Pennsylvania, New York or New Jersey? Nettles said drivers that far north have too many options for trip advice to be helpful. “You guys just happened to be close to us,” he added. Lucky us.
Still, it’s ludicrous to think beach visitors can’t afford the higher tolls along the expressway. A 2006 survey by Strategic Marketing & Research Inc. found that visitors to the Outer Banks took trips that averaged around six nights. “Overall, the ‘average’ visitor spent a total of $2,193 during their trip,” the report noted. Granted, the survey took place before the latest recession. But the numbers suggested that visitors knew they would plunk down a sizable amount when they headed to the region.
Here’s why the issue is important to Chesapeake: The Pilot reported last week on ridership statistics on the Chesapeake Expressway since the new rate took effect. Traffic was down June 17-19 about 15 percent from a similar weekend in 2010. Memorial Day counts fell more than 21 percent, from 17,700 in 2010 to 13,887 this year.
Unaudited figures, however, show the city is bringing in more toll revenues. A one-week period in June 2010 generated nearly $194,000. A comparable week this year raised $365,000, or nearly 88 percent more.
The city should see what the entire summer brings. It doesn’t want traffic on South Battlefield to return to its former gridlock. Still, it needs the expected revenue from the toll hike.
The saber-rattling between the states may have just begun.
Roger Chesley, (757) 446-2329, roger.chesley@pilotonline.com, pilotonline.com/chesley

I find it astounding that the Currituck County Commissioners and the County Tourism officials are crying foul over the increased tolls on the Chesapeake Expressway. The proposed Mid-Currituck Bridge tolls, according to the NCTA in a March 2011 document, are projecting tolls on the 2-lane, yes that’s 1 lane each way, to be $11 to $29 EACH WAY. The $29 dollar toll would be used during periods of high congestion, aka summer weekends. Is Currituck County going to advise tourists to bypass that ridiculous toll? I think not! Maybe the county wants the tourists to save all toll money incurred on their trip to the northern Outer Banks and skip the meals on the way as well, so they can afford the astronomical toll on the Mid-Currituck Bridge. Isn’t that an unfair burden that seems blatantly targeted on Outer Banks visitors?
Webmaster NoMCB.com

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 →