By Cindy Beamon
Staff Writer Daily Advance
Monday, June 14, 2010

A state House plan to cut $15 million earmarked for the mid-county bridge project in Currituck this year would have no effect on the project, despite concerns to the contrary, says David Joyner, executive director of the N.C. Turnpike Authority.

Last week, the N.C. House of Representatives approved a spending plan that would transfer the $15 million into a “mobility fund” for other road projects. Joyner said the funds are not needed yet for the bridge project. Plans for financing the project are behind schedule and need to be finalized before the Turnpike Authority actually needs the funds, he said. “Everything just moved back one fiscal year,” Joyner said.

State Rep. Bill Owens, D-Pasquotank, said he voted to approve the House budget believing that the transfer of the $15 million to a mobility fund would not affect the bridge project, but he’s ready to oppose the provision if he misunderstood its intent.

Last week, Sen. Marc Basnight D-Dare, said he will oppose the provision in the House budget because it would raise tolls for the bridge and could affect financing for the project.

Both Owens and Basnight have been long-time supporters of the mid-county bridge and said they want the project to move forward without delay. Owens said he plans to “get to the bottom” of what effect the budget provision may have before signing off on any budget plan negotiated by the House and Senate in the coming weeks.

“I have been told it would not have any effect on the mid-county bridge,” Owens said.

If he finds out differently during budget negotiations with the Senate, Owens said he will fight against the transfer of funds.

The bridge project is estimated to cost $800 million, according to recent estimates, Joyner said, adding that the cost could go higher as details are finalized. The state plans to pay for the project through its first public-private partnership, using a combination of bonds, tolls, federal loans and private financing. The $15 million was the first installment of “gap funds” set aside by the state to offset construction debt not covered by toll revenue.

The Turnpike Authority had anticipated it would need the gap funds next year, but plans for financing the project are behind schedule, Joyner said. The first installment is not needed until the following year. Thereafter, the state will need to pay $15 million annually for up to 50 years, or until debt for the construction is paid, he said.

Once the debt is paid, the tolls will be dropped and ownership of the two-lane, seven-mile-long span will revert to the state. Until then, the state plans to contract with ACS Dragodos, a Spanish bridge building company, to construct and help finance the project. Joyner said the Turnpike Authority is about six months away from beginning financing negotiations with the company.

Before the negotiations begin, the Turnpike Authority must finalize cost estimates, including revenue it expects to get from tolls. To be cost effective, tolls must be kept at a reasonable price: Initial estimates are $6 to $12 one way.

Since tolls are not likely to cover the full cost of construction, the state has decided to subsidize the project with gap funds. Joyner said the gap funds are not likely to offset the entire construction cost. ACS may also need to provide financing. How much would be decided during negotiations next year, he said.

Comments
Funding & EIS
Submitted by NoMCB on Tue, 06/15/2010 – 14:19.
What happened to the final EIS and all the comments gathered in writing and at public hearings? No decision on that until late August & they keep talking like it’s a done deal! It’s well worth reading the comments on EIS submitted by the Southern Environment Law Center, Audubon NC, NC Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense Fund, & the Wilderness Society which you can find here: http://www.nomcb.com/?p=392 NC Taxpayers, can we afford this when teachers are being cut, and we can’t afford to maintain the roads & bridges we currently have, or replace the lifeline to Hatteras Island, the Bonner Bridge? Note that they are talking about $15MM/year for 50 years for a bridge that’s a convenience not a necessity for tourists or residents, will not solve evacuation issues, but it will destroy the fragile Currituck sound and the environment at both ends of the bridge, wipe out what remains of one of the last barrier islands and be a real bonanza for the politicians and developers!

Mid-county bridge funds axed
By Cindy Beamon
Staff writer Daily Advance
Friday, June 11, 2010

The state House’s proposed budget leaves out funding for a mid-county bridge in Currituck, but the move is likely to be challenged as the General Assembly negotiates its final spending plan in the coming weeks.

The state House of Representatives has approved a budget plan that would remove $15 million for the bridge, using the funds instead to improve urban traffic congestion problems. Sen. Marc Basnight, president pro tem in the Senate, said the funds are critical to the project and need to be put back.

“The bridge is important. It’s been proposed and supported for many, many years,” Basnight said Friday in a telephone interview. He said he will oppose the provision as the Senate and House work together to finalize a budget for the next fiscal year.

“We are in the environmental phase and location phase of the project. We are closer than we have ever been before and to remove any apportionment of the funding would raise the toll.”

Basnight said the removal of funds could also affect financing for the project.

In 2008, the North Carolina General Assembly appropriated $15 million per year as “gap funds” to offset construction debt not covered by toll revenue. Funds for the first installment were earmarked in 2009, but were not spent in last year’s budget. Without the gap funds, tolls would be much higher, possibly too high to make the project practical. “We put the money in there to make the project viable,” Basnight said.

Redirecting the $15 million away from the bridge project would cause tolls, already estimated to cost between $6 to $12 one-way, to go even higher, said Basnight.

Basnight he was unaware of the House’s plans to redirect funding for the project until last week when House legislators finalized their proposed budget package. The House budget reallocates the earmarked funds for the bridge and other Turnpike Authority projects, a total of $39 million, into a “mobility fund” for next year’s budget.

House Rep. Bill Owens D-N.C., could not be reached for comment on Friday.

The funds for the bridge remain intact in the Senate’s version of the budget.

The withdrawal of funds could have far-reaching effects on financing for the project. The state plans to pay for the project through a Public-Private Partnership, using a combination of bonds, tolls, federal loans and private financing to pay for construction. If the state withdraws funding, private investors may back out as well, Schorr Johnson, spokesman for Basnight, said in an earlier interview.

By Jeff Hampton
The Virginian-Pilot
© June 9, 2010

The North Carolina House of Representatives’ budget leaves out $15 million for the Currituck mid-county bridge, a move that could threaten the project.

The Senate budget includes the $15 million.

“It endangers the whole project,” Schorr Johnson, spokesman for Sen. Marc Basnight, D-Dare.

Basnight will not support the house budget without bridge funding, he said. Rep. Bill Owens, D-Pasquotank, a House member representing Currituck and other local counties, was in budget meetings and could not be reached.

The House budget moves the $15 million to a “mobility fund” for state road projects that relieve congestion, Johnson said. But without the $15 million, private investors could back out, Johnson said. The House budget also moves $39 million from the Monroe Connector, another project of the North Carolina Turnpike Authority, he said.

The General Assembly agreed in 2008 to set aside $15 million annually toward the bridge that would connect the Currituck mainland to Corolla at a cost ranging from $600,000 to more than $1 billion.

The Turnpike Authority agreed last year to partner with a private group headed by ACS Infrastructure Development, a subsidiary of a firm based in Spain. The ACS partners, collectively known as Currituck Development Group LLC, are also investors, following a pattern used in Europe.

Debated for more than 20 years, a lack of funding and environmental issues delayed the project. But more recently, using tolls, private investment and public funds, the bridge appeared to be on its way to completion by 2014.

SELC_Comments_Mid-Currituck_Bridge_DEIS_060710

Southern Environmental Law Center comments on the Mid-Currituck Bridge Project.  Our heartfelt thanks go out to them for there invaluable support in fighting this ill conceived project.

North Carolina Audubon, NC Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Wilderness Society all signed on.   The Nature Conservancy is also submitting its own set of comments.

June 1, 2010

Mr. Bill Biddlecome
US Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, N.C. 27889

Subject: Mid–Currituck Bridge

Dear Mr. Biddlecome:

I am writing to express my opposition to the Currituck Mid-County Bridge project which is currently in its final comment period. I have attached a copy of comments regarding issues found in the DEIS. In summary of those comments, it is my position as presented by the DEIS that this bridge fails to meet the objectives set forth in the DEIS.

Specifically, the DEIS states that the bridge will make traffic at the eastern terminus of the bridge (south of Corolla) worse.
Per the DEIS, traffic will improve if Rt 12 is widened between Duck and US 158.
Per the DEIS, without improvement in the outbound capacity of this portion of US158 (NC 168 to NC12) future hurricane evacuation clearance times would not decrease, even if NC 12 was widened, or a Mid-Currituck Bridge was built.
The DEIS does not analyze impact of current widening and improvement to US 158 from Belcross to Camden and on to RT 17 (Project #34430.3) therefore, clearance time is likely to be overstated.
Traffic counts of possible volumes of usage of the MCB are overstated based on observation, that many of the cars passing the Dare/Currituck county line are originating in Dare, are service vehicles (up to 25% of vehicular traffic on a non-summer weekday) that will continue to travel Rt 12 and not utilize the bridge, or, are Dare tourists (another 20% of traffic) that are making day trips to the attractions of the northern beaches such as the Wildlife museum, Whalehead Club, and/or wild horses in the off-road portion of the beach—they will return to Dare via Rt 12. The traffic that will be alleviated by this bridge represents a small fraction of the traffic that currently crosses the Wright Memorial Bridge. And, an even smaller fraction of that traffic will cross the Dare/Currituck line to travel into Currituck County.
One of the major “surveys” used by the North Carolina Turnpike Authority to judge traffic was actually conducted well south of Duck on Rt 12 at the intersection with Chickahawk.
Congested summer weekend traffic represents only 9% of total yearly travel days. On Saturday May 29th (Memorial Day weekend) at 11:30 am, I drove from Aydlett to the third stoplight south of the Wright Memorial Bridge at highway speeds in 25 minutes. I don’t think this travel time is unbearable. I observed a traffic survey car sitting at the intersection of Rt 12 and US158 near the stoplight for the rest area.

The environmental impact of this bridge is substantial whether measured by the proposed “dams” on which the western terminus is to be built through the Maple Swamp, the coastal marshland at the eastern terminus, the noise/light/air pollution within the village of Aydlett, the impact on wetlands and habitat—yesterday I observed a pair of nesting American Bald eagles within 1 mile of the proposed western terminus as well as 3 Osprey feeding/hunting within the 1 mile radius. Last summer I observed sea turtles (not snapping turtles) feeding near my pier. These impacts are inadequately analyzed by the DEIS.

Additionally, I would like to comment regarding the volume of boat traffic observed which would be impacted by the bridge. I have seen within the last month two sailing schooners with masts in excess of 30 ft., two dozen sail boards with masts of 9-11 ft., 10 kayaks, numerous jet skis, 8 fishing/crabbing boats of watermen working the sound for jobs, 10-20 pleasure boats, some pulling skiers, and, large inboard boats pulling parasails. I personally sail a Prindle catamaran with a 23ft mast.

At the public hearings on the DEIS, the vast majority of individuals speaking, spoke out against the building of any bridge. It was the business community and more specifically, the real estate business, which overwhelmingly supported the bridge. You have to ask yourself–what is the real purpose of this bridge and whether it is needed, or merely “wanted” by those with real estate developmental interests.

The need to exact the environmental and economic costs of the Currituck Mid-County bridge on North Carolina residents is not supported by the DEIS. I respectfully request that you please join the individuals who expressed their opposition to the bridge and not support any option which builds a bridge. The bridge does not accomplish its stated purposes as put forth in the DEIS.

It makes traffic worse in Corolla,
It doesn’t improve hurricane evacuation,
It does not substantially improve travel time from mainland Currituck to the Currituck Outer Banks.
It does nothing to address congested traffic in Duck, Southern Shores, and Kitty Hawk.
It fails to recognize that the traffic problem it seeks to address represents only 9% of total travel days in a year.

Sincerely,

Wallace E. Davis, III