{"id":1276,"date":"2019-03-13T16:43:04","date_gmt":"2019-03-13T20:43:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nomcb.com\/?p=1276"},"modified":"2019-03-13T16:43:06","modified_gmt":"2019-03-13T20:43:06","slug":"s-e-l-c-press-release","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nomcb.com\/?p=1276","title":{"rendered":"S.E.L.C. Press Release"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Local Residents, Hunters, and Fishermen Outraged by\nApproval of $500M Mid-Currituck Bridge<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

CHAPEL HILL, N.C.\u2013 Local residents from the Currituck mainland and the\nnorthern Outer Banks\u2014along with hunters, fishermen, and wildlife enthusiasts\nfrom the North Carolina Wildlife Federation\u2014reacted with dismay when the North\nCarolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) announced\nlate Friday that it had signed a legal approval for the $500 million\nMid-Currituck Bridge. The Southern Environmental Law Center represents the\ngroups and has written multiple letters over the years calling into question\nthe need for the bridge and the adequacy of the agencies\u2019 environmental review\nfor the project.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The $500 million proposed bridge would stretch from Aydlett on the Currituck\nmainland across the environmentally-sensitive Currituck Sound to Corolla on the\nOuter Banks. The bridge would lead to growth in undisturbed areas along\nthe Northern Outer Banks, along with increased pollution, thus harming\nimportant wildlife habitat in the area. The highly controversial bridge\nhas failed to gain necessary legal approvals to move forward for the past 40\nyears. It would cause significant damage to the Currituck Sound, and its\npricey tolls\u2014by some estimates up to $50 during peak summer months\u2014render the\nproject only usable by wealthy tourists.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite receiving this approval from the Federal Highway Administration,\nNCDOT has been unable to present a viable financial plan to pay for the bridge.\nThe new document shows that NCDOT predicts a drop in long-term traffic\nexpectations, calling into question the agency\u2019s claimed need for the\nbridge. Less traffic would also mean less toll revenue going toward the\ncost of the bridge. As a result, the bridge may consume all state transportation\nfunding for North Carolina\u2019s Northern coastal region for years to\ncome.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Approval of this expensive bridge is\nparticularly disappointing in light of Governor Cooper\u2019s recent statements and\nexecutive order noting the importance of resiliency in the face of climate\nchange,\u201d said SELC Attorney Kym Hunter. \u201cNot only will this bridge\nencourage more development in a stretch of North Carolina that will soon be\nunderwater, but it diverts funding away from other needed road improvements in\ncoastal North Carolina that are increasingly vulnerable to flooding.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The groups are particularly\nconcerned with the lack of transparency surrounding the approval\nprocess. There has been no public analysis of the bridge and no\nopportunity for the public to weigh in on options since 2012. Despite the\nsignificant changes and new information that has come to light in the\nintervening years, NCDOT has chosen to avoid a public process and engage in\nclosed door decision-making instead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among the new information NCDOT has\nignored is a study, presented by the groups last year, looking at a suite of\nless costly alternative transportation solutions for the Northern Outer\nBanks. The proposal includes minimal road widening along key congested\nstretches of NC 12, a redesigned interchange between NC 12 and 158, and the\nconversion of signalized intersections to roundabouts, as well as programs\ndesigned to reduce transportation demand, such as incentives for staggered\ncheck-out days at vacation rental homes, and an \u201celectronic key\u201d program that\nwould eliminate unnecessary trips to centralized vacation rental offices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The alternative solution was\ndesigned to ease peak congestion days, which occur primarily on summer\nweekends, at drastically less cost to taxpayers and the environment than the\nproposed bridge. The approach also could be implemented much sooner than the\nproposed bridge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Southern Environmental Law\nCenter is currently reviewing the NCDOT\u2019s approval documents and coordinating\nwith its clients about next steps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                                                          \n###<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No Mid-Currituck Bridge is comprised\nof residents of and visitors to the Currituck mainland and Outer Banks who\noppose the Mid-Currituck Bridge.  NoMCB strives to protect the unique\nnatural environment of the Currituck mainland and the Outer Banks that hundreds\nof thousands of visitors come to experience and enjoy every year. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

North Carolina Wildlife Federation\nis a 501 \u00a9 3 nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection, conservation,\nand restoration of North Carolina wildlife and habitat since 1945.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For more than 30 years, the Southern\nEnvironmental Law Center has used the power of the law to champion the\nenvironment of the Southeast. With more than 80 attorneys and nine offices\nacross the region, SELC is widely recognized as the Southeast\u2019s foremost\nenvironmental organization and regional leader. SELC works on a full range of\nenvironmental issues to protect our natural resources and the health and\nwell-being of all the people in our region. www.SouthernEnvironment.org<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Local Residents, Hunters, and Fishermen Outraged by Approval of $500M Mid-Currituck Bridge CHAPEL HILL, N.C.\u2013 Local residents from the Currituck mainland and the northern Outer Banks\u2014along with hunters, fishermen, and wildlife enthusiasts from the North Carolina Wildlife Federation\u2014reacted with dismay when the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) announced late Friday that it had signed a legal […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[110,111,116,126,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1276","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-mid-currituck-bridge","category-mid-currituck-bridge-record-of-decision","category-nomcb","category-southern-environmental-law-center","category-uncategorized"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nomcb.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1276","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nomcb.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nomcb.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nomcb.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nomcb.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1276"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.nomcb.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1276\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1277,"href":"https:\/\/www.nomcb.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1276\/revisions\/1277"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nomcb.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1276"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nomcb.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1276"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nomcb.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1276"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}