NCDOT drops long Bonner Bridge replacement option
John Lansford
In another dizzying change of direction, the state Department of
Transportation has ditched its plans for a 17-mile replacement for the
aging Herbert C. Bonner Bridge in favor of the shorter alternative
proposed more than 10 years ago.
A June 17 letter from DOT Secretary Lyndo Tippett informed Dare County
Commissioner Stan White that the DOT has ceased work on the long
bridge and will pursue the short bridge over Oregon Inlet that Dare
officials support.
...
Instead of spending about $300 million to build a bridge that limits
access to much of the best fishing, surfing, birding and beachcombing
on the Outer Banks, White suggested that DOT build a cable-stayed
bridge in about the same location as the existing bridge.
The savings then could be put toward maintenance of N.C. 12, the
erosion-plagued highway on Hatteras Island.
Construction of the proposed short bridge is estimated to cost about
$150 million, a DOT spokeswoman said.
No estimate is available for maintenance costs for N.C. 12.
But even with the DOT backing the short bridge, there’s still the
issue of meeting the regulations of the National Wildlife Refuge
Improvement Act of 1997, which requires projects on refuge land to be
compatible with the agency’s preservation mission.
The south end of the short bridge replacement, as proposed, would land
on refuge property.
Refuge manager Mike Bryant had advised bridge planners in 2001 that
such a proposal would involve securing a permit for new highway
right-of-way that could have long-term effects.
“It is very unlikely that the proposal can be found compatible as
planned,” Bryant wrote.
Deputy refuge manager Kathy Whaley said: “I can tell you, in Mike’s
opinion, if they come back to him with the same alternative that they
presented to him in ’93, then he’s going to have the same opinion .
We’re back to square one.”
The bridge project has been bumbling through the bureaucratic maze
since 1991, when the planning process first began for a new span over
Oregon Inlet.
After years of slow progress, the project skidded to a halt in 1999
over questions of the effects on threatened and endangered species.
After state Sen. Marc Basnight, D-Manteo, kick-started the project in
2002, planners revived the mothballed draft environmental impact
statement. But that was soon derailed when coastal engineer and North
Carolina State University professor John Fisher informed the DOT that
the spot where the bridge was supposed to tie in to N.C. 12 was
eroding rapidly and was likely to wash away in a matter of years.
In response, a “merger team” representing 13 regulatory agencies was
hastily assembled to find an alternative bridge plan. After meeting
several times, the team narrowed options down to four choices, two of
which were quickly discarded. Several meetings followed, and the
17-mile alternative was unanimously chosen as the best way to avoid
expensive and challenging maintenance of N.C. 12 and pose the least
environmental harm .
But opponents of the long bridge were concerned about loss of access
to the recreational activities in the refuge, as well as the danger to
people if there were an accident on the bridge. The county was also
worried that the short jetty in front of the old Oregon Inlet Coast
Guard Station – now owned by the state – would have to be removed,
resulting in severe erosion.
After Dare County presented its concerns to the DOT, Tippett agreed to
put the project on hold until April to give White the opportunity to
find other options.
An Internet petition from the Pea Island Coalition, a grass-roots
group opposed to the 17-mile bridge, received 1,259 electronic
signatures, said Steve Pauls, an owner of the Pit Surf Shop &
Boardrider’s Grill in Kill Devil Hills.
...
Yet, the issues that inspired the 17-mile alternative in the first
place are still there, particularly the need to maintain the eroding
section of highway that the bridge would have bypassed.
“If I were living on Hatteras or Ocracoke Islands, I would be very,
very concerned about this,” said Jan DeBlieu, the Cape Hatteras
Coastkeeper for the North Carolina Coastal Federation. “Because
basically, they’re going to leave the highway where it is, and they’re
already having problems.”
DeBlieu said that beach nourishment as a solution presents a
“conundrum, to say the least” in a national seashore.
The 17-mile design was sensitive to preservation of habitat but also,
with its location in quieter waters, addressed the dangerous
conditions in the inlet.
“DOT designed a solution that would be the best thing in terms of
maintaining the natural beauty of the Outer Banks,” she said. “And
they just tossed it out the window.”
-----------------------------------------------------
It's going to be hard to persuade the resource agencies that NCDOT is
only going to study one alternative on this project. The Outer Banks
National Seashore has as much protection under the law as a national
park or historic site, and while a 17 mile long bridge would
definitely be expensive, the resource agencies aren't going to care
about that.
Let's hope the old bridge holds up a few years more, because it is
going to take a long, long time to get this project permitted if the
shorter bridge is selected as the design alternative.
John Lansford, PE
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/
Scott M. Kozel
>
> It's going to be hard to persuade the resource agencies that NCDOT is
> only going to study one alternative on this project. The Outer Banks
> National Seashore has as much protection under the law as a national
> park or historic site, and while a 17 mile long bridge would
> definitely be expensive, the resource agencies aren't going to care
> about that.
>
> Let's hope the old bridge holds up a few years more, because it is
> going to take a long, long time to get this project permitted if the
> shorter bridge is selected as the design alternative.
If they want more than one alternative, then they can always add the
Ferry Alternative. If only one bridge alternative is deemed minimally
feasible by NCDOT, and the resource agencies wind up blocking that
alternative, and the old bridge ultimately fails, then the only
remaining future means to cross the inlet would be the Ferry
Alternative.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Mike Tantillo
> John Lansford <jlns...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > It's going to be hard to persuade the resource agencies that NCDOT is
> > only going to study one alternative on this project. The Outer Banks
> > National Seashore has as much protection under the law as a national
> > park or historic site, and while a 17 mile long bridge would
> > definitely be expensive, the resource agencies aren't going to care
> > about that.
> >
> > Let's hope the old bridge holds up a few years more, because it is
> > going to take a long, long time to get this project permitted if the
> > shorter bridge is selected as the design alternative.
>
> If they want more than one alternative, then they can always add the
> Ferry Alternative. If only one bridge alternative is deemed minimally
> feasible by NCDOT, and the resource agencies wind up blocking that
> alternative, and the old bridge ultimately fails, then the only
> remaining future means to cross the inlet would be the Ferry
> Alternative.
Indeed, as the Oregon Inlet bridge's days are numbered. No, its not
in imminent danger, but long term, the inlet is going to shift enough
where it won't be under the bridge anymore.
To John's original post....this is an interesting catch-22 here. it
sounds like the wildlife refuge wants the long bridge since it will
land off its property. It sounds like the public (and Dare County)
wants the short bridge, because people want access to the refuge. I
think the wildlife refuge needs to determine its reason for existance.
Is the reason to completely preserve the area for wildlife, or is it
to function as a park of sorts and allow humans access to enjoy the
wildlife in a setting where wildlife is protected? If its the former,
then perhaps the wildlife refuge is justified in demanding the long
bridge. If its the latter, then I think the officials need to
understand that in order for humans to enjoy the resources that the
wildlife refuge provides, they have to have a way to get there.
Ultimately, if vehicle access to the wildlife refuge is preserved, the
long bridge will massively increase VMT through the refuge for its
users...as most users will have to travel the length of the refuge
twice..once in the air on the bridge, and one on the ground on the
access road. I feel sorry for the DOT who seems to be caught in the
middle on this one!
Scott M. Kozel
Actually, the 17-mile-long bridge would be 3 to 4 miles from Pea Island,
for most of the length of the bridge, and I don't think that it would
pass through any of the wildlife refuge; that is apparently why the
resource agencies like it so much.
See Alternative/Corridor 4 --
http://peaisland.fws.gov/bonnerbridgefactsheet62603.pdf
The main benefit of the 17-mile bridge is supposedly to eliminate the
expensive maintenance of the 14 miles of the existing highway on Pea
Island and its 3 "hot spots" where high water regularly damages the
roadway. Like you say, I don't think that the public will go along with
closing the highway access to Pea Island.
But if the 14 miles of the existing highway on Pea Island will be
retained under the 17-mile bridge scheme, then that militates against
building the 17-mile bridge, since a properly maintained existing
highway will provide good highway service without the long bridge.
Another problem with the 17-mile bridge scheme, is that it would not
provide any direct access to the northern end of Pea Island, that
motorists would have go all the way to the south end of the bridge and
then backtrack 14 miles if they wanted to travel to the north end of Pea
Island. IOW, it would add about 30 miles to the existing access scheme.
John Lansford
>"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<40DA042E...@attbi.com>...
>> John Lansford <jlns...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > It's going to be hard to persuade the resource agencies that NCDOT is
>> > only going to study one alternative on this project. The Outer Banks
>> > National Seashore has as much protection under the law as a national
>> > park or historic site, and while a 17 mile long bridge would
>> > definitely be expensive, the resource agencies aren't going to care
>> > about that.
>> >
>> > Let's hope the old bridge holds up a few years more, because it is
>> > going to take a long, long time to get this project permitted if the
>> > shorter bridge is selected as the design alternative.
>>
>> If they want more than one alternative, then they can always add the
>> Ferry Alternative. If only one bridge alternative is deemed minimally
>> feasible by NCDOT, and the resource agencies wind up blocking that
>> alternative, and the old bridge ultimately fails, then the only
>> remaining future means to cross the inlet would be the Ferry
>> Alternative.
>
>Indeed, as the Oregon Inlet bridge's days are numbered. No, its not
>in imminent danger, but long term, the inlet is going to shift enough
>where it won't be under the bridge anymore.
A ferry would be expensive to maintain and operate and would lead to
unacceptable delays for motorists trying to get to the islands. NCDOT
considered this as an alternative and dropped it very early in the
planning process.
>To John's original post....this is an interesting catch-22 here. it
>sounds like the wildlife refuge wants the long bridge since it will
>land off its property.
Correct.
> It sounds like the public (and Dare County)
>wants the short bridge, because people want access to the refuge.
Accurate as well.
> I
>think the wildlife refuge needs to determine its reason for existance.
> Is the reason to completely preserve the area for wildlife, or is it
>to function as a park of sorts and allow humans access to enjoy the
>wildlife in a setting where wildlife is protected? If its the former,
>then perhaps the wildlife refuge is justified in demanding the long
>bridge. If its the latter, then I think the officials need to
>understand that in order for humans to enjoy the resources that the
>wildlife refuge provides, they have to have a way to get there.
From their comments, it is apparent to me that they consider their
mission to be a blend of both, with the preservation of the remaining
wildlife habitats more important than providing access for the public.
>Ultimately, if vehicle access to the wildlife refuge is preserved, the
>long bridge will massively increase VMT through the refuge for its
>users...as most users will have to travel the length of the refuge
>twice..once in the air on the bridge, and one on the ground on the
>access road. I feel sorry for the DOT who seems to be caught in the
>middle on this one!
I'd like to know exactly how many people would be inconvenienced by a
long structure. If they were heading south toward Buxton the long
bridge is not an issue. Obviously some small number of fishermen like
to use the Oregon Inlet area to fish; they'd have to drive an
additional 34 miles to get to their area. While certainly a hassle,
it's not like they don't have access at all.
I'm concerned that NCDOT is caving in to political pressure and
crossing their fingers and hoping the resource agencies will allow the
project to be approved. I've had projects where the agencies had
concerns during design, and for various reasons they were not
addressed until the permit applications were sent in. One of them took
over 2 years to get approved, with the politicians screaming every day
that they wanted the work begun RIGHT NOW.
John Lansford
Here's another article on this subject:
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1368411p-7491224c.html
Faced with strong opposition from Dare County officials and
tourist-related businesses, the Department of Transportation is now
endorsing a route close to the existing 2.5-mile bridge. Local
officials said Thursday a shorter bridge will cost less and preserve
public access to the northern end of Pea Island.
But the shorter route will not end controversy.
Environmentalists and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said the
longer bridge would be better for beaches and wetlands in the Pea
Island National Wildlife Refuge south of the bridge.
"We're surprised that DOT succumbed to political pressure," said
Victor D'Amato of Raleigh, a spokesman for the N.C. chapter of the
Sierra Club.
He said local concerns about access to Pea Island with a long bridge
could be worked out.
"We're disappointed, but we're not sure the short option will fly," he
said.
State Transportation Secretary Lyndo Tippett announced the change in a
letter to Stan White, a Dare County commissioner and state
transportation board member. Tippett said in the June 17 letter that
"local decision makers should be given an opportunity to develop a
replacement proposal of their own."
A DOT spokeswoman said state officials responded to public input.
White said Thursday he had lobbied hard for the state to reconsider
the decision. He said he received at least 1,000 e-mail messages from
those who want to continue using the northern part of Pea Island. He
called the area a "premier spot on the East Coast for fishing from the
shoreline."
White said he thinks a replacement bridge could be developed that
would satisfy federal officials, who must also approve the route.
The state hopes to begin work in 2006 and complete the bridge in four
years. The longer route would cost at least $240 million, and the
shortest alternative would cost $138 million.
...
A replacement has been in the works for more than 10 years. But
selecting a route has been complicated because the existing route runs
through the wildlife refuge.
The 17-mile path was designed to curve to the west into Pamlico Sound,
skirting wetlands, refuge property and erosion hot spots on Pea Island
beaches.
Kathy Whaley, deputy manager of the Pea Island Refuge, said the agency
still prefers that route. She said refuge officials would have to
review a specific proposal from the state before making a decision.
But opponents said people wouldn't be able to drive to the northern
tip of Pea Island, especially if the segment of N.C. 12 in the refuge
were abandoned.
Warren Judge, chairman of the Dare County Board of Commissioners, said
people use the stretch for bird-watching, sunbathing, swimming and
fishing. The area closest to the south side of the bridge is popular
for those who don't own beach property, he said.
Local officials are also concerned that if N.C. 12 is rerouted, the
state would have to remove the stone barrier.
Although the DOT sided with local officials, Tippett also asked in his
letter that White communicate directly with him on the issue "to
prevent any future miscommunications."
White said he had been told that some DOT employees felt intimidated
when he asked questions about the bridge. But he said he believes he
has every right to do so as a DOT board member.
----------------------------------------------------
White should know better. Whenever a board member asks a question to
the design staff, it tends to be interpreted as "what does he want"
and has led in the past to some board members being accused of
exerting undue influence on projects. Tippett is correct in asking the
board member to forward requests and questions through him; to bypass
the entire chain of command and go to the design staff directly is the
wrong way for him to act.
Craig Zeni
> I'm concerned that NCDOT is caving in to political pressure and
> crossing their fingers and hoping the resource agencies will allow the
> project to be approved. I've had projects where the agencies had
> concerns during design, and for various reasons they were not
> addressed until the permit applications were sent in. One of them took
> over 2 years to get approved, with the politicians screaming every day
> that they wanted the work begun RIGHT NOW.
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that our inestimable Mr Basnight has a
fondness for fishing at the north end of the island, or one of his close
associates does, or one of them actually owns a house or similar north
of where the long bridge would connect. Folks like them are simply too
important to have to drive 20 miles out of their way...
Not Well Connected
NC
John Lansford
Mr. Basnight has a fondness for the Outer Banks; he owns a restaurant
out there right after you cross the bridge to the barrier island, in
fact. It wouldn't surprise me either if he and/or the board member
decided "enough was enough" and ordered NCDOT to drop the long bridge
option, figuring they'll fight the resource agencies when it gets to
that point.
Except, for the last five years or more, NCDOT has been trying to
avoid fighting those last minute battles that hold up projects for
months, because the resource agencies disapproved of the project or
alternative and refused to issue a permit for it.
This is just more of the same old, same old that I've seen for years,
especially when politicians get involved in engineering decisions.
Scott M. Kozel
news:<0gund059u5tm1m0fv...@4ax.com>...
>
> mjtan...@yahoo.com (Mike Tantillo) wrote:
> > "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> If they want more than one alternative, then they can always add the
> >> Ferry Alternative. If only one bridge alternative is deemed minimally
> >> feasible by NCDOT, and the resource agencies wind up blocking that
> >> alternative, and the old bridge ultimately fails, then the only
> >> remaining future means to cross the inlet would be the Ferry
> >> Alternative.
> >
> >Indeed, as the Oregon Inlet bridge's days are numbered. No, its not
> >in imminent danger, but long term, the inlet is going to shift enough
> >where it won't be under the bridge anymore.
>
> A ferry would be expensive to maintain and operate and would lead to
> unacceptable delays for motorists trying to get to the islands. NCDOT
> considered this as an alternative and dropped it very early in the
> planning process.
I was responding to your comment, "It's going to be hard to persuade
the resource agencies that NCDOT is only going to study one
alternative on this project".
"Not very desirable" alternatives are often included in location
studies so that the process can include multiple alternatives. The
process as outlined above could wind up having zero bridge
alternatives, so without a ferry alternative, that could possibly
leave only one alternative, the "no-build alternative".
> >It sounds like the public (and Dare County)
> >wants the short bridge, because people want access to the refuge.
>
> Accurate as well.
That seems to me like the most logical alternative; after all,
motorists have had access via that highway to the refuge for decades,
so that alternative would simply continue to provide that access.
Article: "Faced with strong opposition from Dare County officials and
tourist-related businesses, the Department of Transportation is now
endorsing a route close to the existing 2.5-mile bridge. Local
officials said Thursday a shorter bridge will cost less and preserve
public access to the northern end of Pea Island".
> >If its the latter, then I think the officials need to
> >understand that in order for humans to enjoy the resources that the
> >wildlife refuge provides, they have to have a way to get there.
>
> From their comments, it is apparent to me that they consider their
> mission to be a blend of both, with the preservation of the remaining
> wildlife habitats more important than providing access for the public.
But in this case, they are talking about ending the public highway
access that has already existed for decades, to the refuge.
> >Ultimately, if vehicle access to the wildlife refuge is preserved, the
> >long bridge will massively increase VMT through the refuge for its
> >users...as most users will have to travel the length of the refuge
> >twice..once in the air on the bridge, and one on the ground on the
> >access road. I feel sorry for the DOT who seems to be caught in the
> >middle on this one!
>
> I'd like to know exactly how many people would be inconvenienced by a
> long structure. If they were heading south toward Buxton the long
> bridge is not an issue. Obviously some small number of fishermen like
> to use the Oregon Inlet area to fish; they'd have to drive an
> additional 34 miles to get to their area. While certainly a hassle,
> it's not like they don't have access at all.
All the people who go to various points along the 14 miles of Pea
Island, for various forms of recreation, would be inconvenienced by
the long structure. The exact number and degree (presently and
potentially in the future), is something that the study will have to
ascertain, but 14 miles of ocean beachline, 14 miles of sound
shoreline, and 14 miles of interior land, is quite a lot of
recreational opportunities.
The other article you posted said:
"The state hopes to begin work in 2006 and complete the bridge in four
years. The longer route would cost at least $240 million, and the
shortest alternative would cost $138 million".
SMK: The current highway is a barrier island highway that dead-ends
about 50 miles south of the Bonner Bridge, and there are no other
outlets except a ferry at the very southern end. Under those
conditions, the long bridge seems outlandishly expensive, and it seems
reasonable that NCDOT would decide to drop that alternative (which
they just did).
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Craig Zeni <Don.Co...@spammers.die> wrote:
>
> >It wouldn't surprise me to learn that our inestimable Mr Basnight has a
> >fondness for fishing at the north end of the island, or one of his close
> >associates does, or one of them actually owns a house or similar north
> >of where the long bridge would connect. Folks like them are simply too
> >important to have to drive 20 miles out of their way...
>
> Mr. Basnight has a fondness for the Outer Banks; he owns a restaurant
> out there right after you cross the bridge to the barrier island, in
> fact. It wouldn't surprise me either if he and/or the board member
> decided "enough was enough" and ordered NCDOT to drop the long bridge
> option, figuring they'll fight the resource agencies when it gets to
> that point.
>
> Except, for the last five years or more, NCDOT has been trying to
> avoid fighting those last minute battles that hold up projects for
> months, because the resource agencies disapproved of the project or
> alternative and refused to issue a permit for it.
>
> This is just more of the same old, same old that I've seen for years,
> especially when politicians get involved in engineering decisions.
However, the potential usage of 4(f) land by a state highway project, is
much more than an "engineering decision", in fact, it is mainly a
political decision, and as such is in the domain of the state
legislature and the Governor's office, plus the in the domain of
whatever federal agencies are involved in the decision.
Mike Tantillo
OK, I half agree with you. First off, the usage stats should be
easily available, as all federal parks, recreation areas, etc, should
be keeping stats on a regular basis. I agree that it would be a
hassle to get there, but that it will still be accessible. And unless
you are actually going to Oregon Inlet, the detour would be less then
34 miles. but here's where the problem lies....after a hurricane, the
access road gets washed out. If the access road is NC 12, rest
assured that it will be fixed in a timely manner. If the access road
is an old, bypassed segment of NC 12, which has a low traffic count,
the environmentalists might step in and fight any efforts to fix it.
At that point, access is lost. That would be a concern of mine if I
was a regular user of the wildlife refuge.
>
> I'm concerned that NCDOT is caving in to political pressure and
> crossing their fingers and hoping the resource agencies will allow the
> project to be approved. I've had projects where the agencies had
> concerns during design, and for various reasons they were not
> addressed until the permit applications were sent in. One of them took
> over 2 years to get approved, with the politicians screaming every day
> that they wanted the work begun RIGHT NOW.
As I said, its unfortunate that NCDOT has to be caught in the middle
of what seems to be a dispute between federal resource agencies and
local politicians. Someone should lock the local politicians and the
resource agencies in the same room and let them argue in person, and
then get back to the DOT with what their compromise is. But then that
leaves the DOT out of the process....guess ya just can't win. It
would be nice to have some sort of transportation planning 101 video
or something for local politicians to watch to actually learn about
the process and how it works, so maybe they'll bring their concerns up
with the right people in the first place.
>
> John Lansford, PE
John Lansford
That's been the ongoing concern; that the Park Service would allow old
NC 28 to fall into disrepair and then attempt to ban vehicular beach
access as well.
>>
>> I'm concerned that NCDOT is caving in to political pressure and
>> crossing their fingers and hoping the resource agencies will allow the
>> project to be approved. I've had projects where the agencies had
>> concerns during design, and for various reasons they were not
>> addressed until the permit applications were sent in. One of them took
>> over 2 years to get approved, with the politicians screaming every day
>> that they wanted the work begun RIGHT NOW.
>
>As I said, its unfortunate that NCDOT has to be caught in the middle
>of what seems to be a dispute between federal resource agencies and
>local politicians. Someone should lock the local politicians and the
>resource agencies in the same room and let them argue in person, and
>then get back to the DOT with what their compromise is. But then that
>leaves the DOT out of the process....guess ya just can't win. It
>would be nice to have some sort of transportation planning 101 video
>or something for local politicians to watch to actually learn about
>the process and how it works, so maybe they'll bring their concerns up
>with the right people in the first place.
>
There are TIP meetings and discussions between board members and local
politicians all the time; they certainly know how difficult it has
been getting permits approved on projects the resource agencies don't
like. It certainly appears that the politicians and agencies on this
project aren't likely to come to some compromise, and as a result a
needed bridge replacement project will not take place very quickly.
John Lansford
Here's a local article on the decision by NCDOT to eliminate the
longer bridge alternative. I note two things from it:
--Marc Basnight's name is mentioned extensively in the article.
Basnight represents the county in the NC legislature.
--Secretary Tippett is the one that made the call to eliminate the
longer alternative. In my 20 years of design experience, whenever the
secretary decided an alternative was to be eliminated, it was due to
politics, not engineering reasons.
http://www.womacknewspapers.com/obsentinel/
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) has derailed
plans to replace the ailing Herbert C. Bonner Bridge with a proposed
17-mile replacement span.
Instead, the DOT has reached back more than 10 years and is now
actively pursuing a shorter bridge that would tie Hatteras and
Ocracoke Islands to the rest of the Outer Banks.
In a June 17 letter to Dare County Commissioner and State
Transportation Board member Stan White, North Carolina Secretary of
Transportation Lyndo Tippett stressed that the DOT is committed to
developing what he called the most practical and financially
responsible alternative to replacing the aging bridge.
"With this aim, I have directed Deputy Secretary Roger Sheats to cease
work on the 17-mile long alternative and pursue the shorter
alternative that Dare County supports," Tippett wrote.
Tippett noted that the shorter span is the preferred replacement
alternative recommended in a 1993 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) developed by the DOT. It is also the alternative backed by Dare
commissioners as well as State Senator Marc Basnight, who represents
the county in Raleigh.
"This alternative would construct a new bridge parallel to, and just
west of, the existing Bonner Bridge," Tippett explained.
...
County commissioners and Basnight argued that the long bridge would
cut off access to the refuge -- which boasts some of the best fishing
along the east coast of the United States. They also expressed concern
over traffic tie-ups that would result when accidents occurred on the
bridge and worried about the possible fate of the Old Coast Guard
Station after the Bonner bridge is replaced and its terminal groin
removed.
(The long bridge would have had shoulders wide enough for a disabled
vehicle to get out of the traffic lane. In fact, so does the shorter
version. That argument is a strawman.)
...
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service permitted the construction of the
original 2.5-mile Bonner Bridge in the 1960s and okayed the placement
of the terminal groin in 1989. Deputy Pea Island Refuge manager Kathy
Whaley cautioned that the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of
1997 requires that work undertaken on the nation's refuges be
consistent with the preservation mission of the service.
"This bridge must be found to be compatible with the purpose of the
Refuge before it can be permitted," she remarked.
...
White, who represents the 14 counties which comprise the first
district of the state transport ion board, added that constructing the
17-mile bridge would cost approximately $300 million. Those funds
would come out of the first district's budget, causing other projects
to be pushed back for several years.
"We're not home free yet," White cautioned. The short bridge proposal
must go before a 13-member Merger Team for approval.
Planning for the replacement of Bonner bridge began in 1991, but ended
eight years later when various environmental concerns were raised.
Work on the project began again in 2002, when Basnight successfully
had the effort re-activated.
That's when transportation planners again brought out the draft EIS.
However, engineers from N.C. State University soon advised the DOT
that the spot where the bridge was projected to land was eroding and
would be under water in a matter of years.
The Merger Team - consisting of representatives from the National Park
Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Marine Fisheries and other
groups -- was formed to develop replacement options. Four alternatives
were developed, with two of those quickly thrown out during a series
of meetings. The group ultimately and unanimously agreed that the
17-mile span was the best of the options open to them.
Cape Hatteras Coastkeeper Jan DeBlieu is a proponent of the longer
span. She said she is not sure that the public is aware of how much
work it will take to keep N.C. 12 intact at its current location.
"It can't be done without a major beach renourishment project," she
points out. "That's going to be tremendously expensive, and it stands
a good chance of affecting the natural qualities people love so much
about Pea Island. It may even affect the surf breaks."
She added that there is no way to stop the westward progression of
North Carolina's barrier islands.
"It would have been much wiser to build the long bridge, with a spur
that would have given people access to Pea Island," DeBlieu said.
-------------------------------------------------------------
This may become the most controversial project NCDOT has if the short
alternative is presented as the build option to the resource agencies.
They've already gone on record as opposing the shorter alternative,
and warned the department that getting a permit for it may be very
difficult, if possible at all. Building a similar lengthed bridge just
west of the current Bonner Bridge still presents the same engineering
problems on the south end, where beach erosion is constant and severe.
IMO what should have been done was to attempt to get a compromise
worked out that would have allowed access from the bridge to the
northern end of Pea Island, and assurances from the Park Service that
they would maintain the old route for tourists after the state
constructed the bridge. Now that the politicians have stepped in,
though, I doubt that any type of compromise will be arrived at.
Let's hope the old Bonner Bridge stays up for a long time and no major
hurricanes draw a bead on it over the next decade or so.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> This may become the most controversial project NCDOT has if the short
> alternative is presented as the build option to the resource agencies.
> They've already gone on record as opposing the shorter alternative,
> and warned the department that getting a permit for it may be very
> difficult, if possible at all. Building a similar lengthed bridge just
> west of the current Bonner Bridge still presents the same engineering
> problems on the south end, where beach erosion is constant and severe.
>
> IMO what should have been done was to attempt to get a compromise
> worked out that would have allowed access from the bridge to the
> northern end of Pea Island,
If you mean a bridge connector from a 17-mile-long bridge to the
northern end of Pea Island, wouldn't that have the same refuge impact
issues as the 'short bridge'? That would add considerably to the total
cost of the overall highway/bridge project, also.
> and assurances from the Park Service that
> they would maintain the old route for tourists after the state
> constructed the bridge. Now that the politicians have stepped in,
> though, I doubt that any type of compromise will be arrived at.
>
> Let's hope the old Bonner Bridge stays up for a long time and no major
> hurricanes draw a bead on it over the next decade or so.
A powerful enough hurricane there could destroy a new bridge, also.
Mike Tantillo
> John Lansford <jlns...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > This may become the most controversial project NCDOT has if the short
> > alternative is presented as the build option to the resource agencies.
> > They've already gone on record as opposing the shorter alternative,
> > and warned the department that getting a permit for it may be very
> > difficult, if possible at all. Building a similar lengthed bridge just
> > west of the current Bonner Bridge still presents the same engineering
> > problems on the south end, where beach erosion is constant and severe.
> >
> > IMO what should have been done was to attempt to get a compromise
> > worked out that would have allowed access from the bridge to the
> > northern end of Pea Island,
>
> If you mean a bridge connector from a 17-mile-long bridge to the
> northern end of Pea Island, wouldn't that have the same refuge impact
> issues as the 'short bridge'? That would add considerably to the total
> cost of the overall highway/bridge project, also.
No, as most vehicles would not be driving through the refuge, they
would be bypassing it on the bridge. Only those vehicle going to the
refuge would be driving to the refuge...wheras with the short bridge,
all vehicles would traverse the refuge.
>
> > and assurances from the Park Service that
> > they would maintain the old route for tourists after the state
> > constructed the bridge. Now that the politicians have stepped in,
> > though, I doubt that any type of compromise will be arrived at.
> >
> > Let's hope the old Bonner Bridge stays up for a long time and no major
> > hurricanes draw a bead on it over the next decade or so.
>
> A powerful enough hurricane there could destroy a new bridge, also.
True, but less likely, due to increase in knowledge of construction
techniques that can make bridges stronger and more able to withstand
hurricanes. Also, the old bridge is in danger of being undermined if
the inlet shifts far enough...whereas the new bridge would be longer.
A hurricane is when the inlet is going to be most likely to shift....
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > John Lansford <jlns...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO what should have been done was to attempt to get a compromise
> > > worked out that would have allowed access from the bridge to the
> > > northern end of Pea Island,
> >
> > If you mean a bridge connector from a 17-mile-long bridge to the
> > northern end of Pea Island, wouldn't that have the same refuge impact
> > issues as the 'short bridge'? That would add considerably to the total
> > cost of the overall highway/bridge project, also.
>
> No, as most vehicles would not be driving through the refuge, they
> would be bypassing it on the bridge. Only those vehicle going to the
> refuge would be driving to the refuge...wheras with the short bridge,
> all vehicles would traverse the refuge.
True, but to avoid the inlet erosion situation, the bridge connector
would need to make landfall on Pea Island a mile or two south of the
current bridge's southern landfall, and even with less traffic, the
resource agencies likely will have the same objection to the
construction of the bridge and highway within the refuge.
John Lansford
>"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<40DEE280...@attbi.com>...
>> John Lansford <jlns...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > This may become the most controversial project NCDOT has if the short
>> > alternative is presented as the build option to the resource agencies.
>> > They've already gone on record as opposing the shorter alternative,
>> > and warned the department that getting a permit for it may be very
>> > difficult, if possible at all. Building a similar lengthed bridge just
>> > west of the current Bonner Bridge still presents the same engineering
>> > problems on the south end, where beach erosion is constant and severe.
>> >
>> > IMO what should have been done was to attempt to get a compromise
>> > worked out that would have allowed access from the bridge to the
>> > northern end of Pea Island,
>>
>> If you mean a bridge connector from a 17-mile-long bridge to the
>> northern end of Pea Island, wouldn't that have the same refuge impact
>> issues as the 'short bridge'? That would add considerably to the total
>> cost of the overall highway/bridge project, also.
>No, as most vehicles would not be driving through the refuge, they
>would be bypassing it on the bridge. Only those vehicle going to the
>refuge would be driving to the refuge...wheras with the short bridge,
>all vehicles would traverse the refuge.
Right. That's been the concern of the Park Service all along; that NC
28 splits the Pea Island Refuge in half. They want the new bridge to
not enter the refuge at all, but I wonder if they'd have accepted a
compromise. Too late now; everyone's positions appear to be set in
concrete and we'll have to see what happens when the permit
applications get sent in for the shorter structure.
>>
>> > and assurances from the Park Service that
>> > they would maintain the old route for tourists after the state
>> > constructed the bridge. Now that the politicians have stepped in,
>> > though, I doubt that any type of compromise will be arrived at.
>> >
>> > Let's hope the old Bonner Bridge stays up for a long time and no major
>> > hurricanes draw a bead on it over the next decade or so.
>>
>> A powerful enough hurricane there could destroy a new bridge, also.
>
>True, but less likely, due to increase in knowledge of construction
>techniques that can make bridges stronger and more able to withstand
>hurricanes. Also, the old bridge is in danger of being undermined if
>the inlet shifts far enough...whereas the new bridge would be longer.
>A hurricane is when the inlet is going to be most likely to shift....
I believe the design specs are supposed to require the bridge to be
able to handle a Category 3 hurricane, which is a pretty severe storm.
If a Cat 4 or 5 hurricane hit the area, though, it's doubtful if any
manmade structure on the Outer Banks would survive.
Mike Tantillo
> mjtan...@yahoo.com (Mike Tantillo) wrote:
> >
> > "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > > John Lansford <jlns...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > IMO what should have been done was to attempt to get a compromise
> > > > worked out that would have allowed access from the bridge to the
> > > > northern end of Pea Island,
> > >
> > > If you mean a bridge connector from a 17-mile-long bridge to the
> > > northern end of Pea Island, wouldn't that have the same refuge impact
> > > issues as the 'short bridge'? That would add considerably to the total
> > > cost of the overall highway/bridge project, also.
> >
> > No, as most vehicles would not be driving through the refuge, they
> > would be bypassing it on the bridge. Only those vehicle going to the
> > refuge would be driving to the refuge...wheras with the short bridge,
> > all vehicles would traverse the refuge.
>
> True, but to avoid the inlet erosion situation, the bridge connector
> would need to make landfall on Pea Island a mile or two south of the
> current bridge's southern landfall, and even with less traffic, the
> resource agencies likely will have the same objection to the
> construction of the bridge and highway within the refuge.
Basically, the inlet is going to keep moving south. The further south
the bridge is, the more time until it needs to be replaced again. in
this case, distance = time. The long bridge clearly makes the most
sense from the standpoint of it will last until the inlet shifts 17
miles. The funny thing is...I just realized...in a couple hundred
years, Oregon inlet will be at the south end of Pea Island anyway, so
this will all be a moot point and wildlife refuge access can be from
the north.
John Lansford
From the articles I've posted, it's apparent that NCDOT's short bridge
option will not extend the structure very much further south than the
current one does. That's why the Park Service has stated that large
amounts of beach renourishment will be needed to stabilize Pea Island
if the short option is used, because it is caused by the severe beach
erosion that the groin protecting the south end of the existing bridge
is creating.
Mike Tantillo
Ay...bad bad idea. Beach nourishment will only do so much...and long
term, it will not stop the inlet from moving! I'm not sure if any of
you know of Orin Pilkey....he's a beach erosion/beach processes expert
at Duke...he guided us on a field trip through the outer banks in 2001
when I took a physical coastal processes class. So most of what I'm
posting are things he had told us about....at one point we actually
stood under the Bonner Bridge. Supposidly NCDOT built some kind of a
fishing pier/platform at the north end of Oregon Inlet when thebridge
was built, but by the time the bridge was finished, the platform was
no longer on Oregon Inlet, as the inlet had shifted south!
The more and more I hear about this, the more and more I see how the
long bridge is probably the best option, despite the inconvenience to
Pea Island WR users.
>
> John Lansford, PE