Skip to main content

Town of Leland has numerous questions/concerns over Cape Fear Skyway

We've been documenting some of the concerns the town of Leland, NC has had over one of the routings of the proposed Cape Fear Skyway.  The northern routing option of the highway runs the closest to the town.

Leland Mayor, Walter Futch, has publicly come out against the highway.  He's stated that if the northern routing was built it would separate his town.

Leland's view is contrary to Brunswick County Commissioners, who on January 19th passed a resolution in support of the northern route.

The town has sent to the North Carolina Turnpike Authority 16 pages of questions in regards to the highway - from financing to routing to economic impacts.  Futch said he will not consider changing his mind until the NCTA answers the 16 page questionnaire.

The questions can be found here.

Story Link:
Alternatives to Skyway possible, officials say ---Wilmington Star News

Commentary:
There are a number of worthy questions from the town - but there are also a number of questions that I'm trying to figure out why they were asked.

Questions about cruise ships caught my attention.  The questions ranged from how many cruise ships would like to use the Port of Wilmington and cannot.  The town wants to also know the cruise line names and their specific reasons.   The last I read - the reasons for lack of cruise ships in Wilmington deal more with the Port of Wilmington than any highways. 

Another section of the questionnaire was on the Port of Wilmington.  One question asked: "If the Port of Wilmington is important to maintain, why not look for a bridge crossing up river from the port?"  This question ties into Futch's contention that a second bridge should be built parallel to the existing Cape Fear Skyway Bridge.  At the January 22nd workshop, the parallel bridge was mentioned by a member of the NCDOT.  Futch said this was the first time this suggestion was ever mentioned by a state official.

The proposed northern route saw the most in depth questions in the document.  Some of the more interesting questions include:

  • Why has it taken four years to think of the Northern alternative through Brunswick County? Is it possible that a better alternative might be found if more time is allotted?
  • What group of people came up with the Northern alternative? When was it first proposed? Who are the members of that group? Who outside the group participated in the process? Are there minutes of that meeting or meetings? Where would they be found? At what point did the Northern alternative become evident?
  • I have heard Mr. Earp of Brunswick Forest state that he offered a much more southerly alternative which would not affect as many residents or as valuable land. Why has this alternative not been revealed and added to the mix of alternatives? Doesn’t the NEPA* process require looking at all the alternatives available during the EIS process? Why has this alternative not been added to the possible corridors on the map?
  • Will the proposed exit on Highway 17 create a commercial district that the Town of Leland can take advantage of?
I take objection to the "I have heard Mr. Earp...offered a much more southerly alternative..."  Asking a question based on rumor is never a good thing.

The financing questions highlight the uncertainty on how many of the NCTA projects will be financed.  Questions that other NC residents facing a toll project are certain to ask.  With suggestions to toll existing free highways, gap financing, the I-485 design-build-finance project all swirling around this and other toll projects, I applaud the Town of Leland for asking them and anticipate NCTA's response.

I am unsure if these questions are typical from a town, organization, or any other community or group in regards to a highway project like this.  While there are many questions that have merit and are questions many in the state have about the NCTA, a fair number of the questions seem trivial and unimportant. 

As the Town of Leland asks in their final question, "Has anyone asked these questions before? If so, are the answers readily available somewhere? If not, why have they not been asked?"

Hopefully when the NCTA answers these questions, their responses will be made available to the public.

Comments

Unknown said…
Hi, Guys: The reason for cruise ship questions submitted to NCDOT is because attracting this industry is one of the stated goals of the City of Wilmington. The height of the Skyway Bridge, they feel, would enable larger ships to use the Port of Wilmington. We were attempting to illicit what information led them to this conclusion. We are also hearing about the new International Port in Southport. Imagine that the plan is then to remove the Port of Wilmington and open up lots of valuable waterview acreage for development.

A recent editorial in the Star News (1/31/10) espousing the visionary view of the Skyway states, "If built as designed with its soaring towers, it also would be a breathtaking entryway into Wilmington and a landmark."

I realize some of the questions brought up may seem trivial or not pertinent, but they were asked because these subjects have come up in meetings with MPO and others.

You'd be surprised how many residents still don't realize that the only way we can have the Skyway is if we pay tolls, not only to use the bridge, but also to use the I-140 Bypass. And, as you know, even with these tolls, it won't be enough to pay for the project. The state will have to commit to $40-$50 million a year in gap funding.

The last I heard, NCDOT has declined to answer any of the questions. At the January 22 meeting, you heard the word IF used a lot. Absolutely nothing in the proposed planning is guaranteed: not the money - not the routes/northern corridor - not the NEPA certification - not the new International Port - nothing.

In the meantime, the immediate completion of at least two projects would bring significant traffic relief to the area and be a great boon to businesses: Completion of the "B" section of the I-140 Bypass (which is shovel ready -- and -- includes a bridge) and a widening of the Rts. 17, 74,76,133 Causeway between Brunswick County and New Hanover County.

Popular posts from this blog

Morgan Territory Road

Morgan Territory Road is an approximately 14.7-mile-long roadway mostly located in the Diablo Range of Contra Costa County, California.  The roadway is named after settler Jerimah Morgan who established a ranch in the Diablo Range in 1857.  Morgan Territory Road was one of several facilities constructed during the Gold Rush era to serve the ranch holdings.   The East Bay Regional Park District would acquire 930 acres of Morgan Territory in 1975 in an effort to establish a preserve east of Mount Diablo. The preserve has since been expanded to 5,324 acres. The preserve functionally stunts the development along roadway allowing it to remain surprisingly primitive in a major urban area. Part 1; the history of Morgan Territory Road During the period of early period of American Statehood much of the Diablo Range of Contra Costa County was sparsely developed.   Jerimah Morgan acquired 2,000 acres of land east of Mount Diablo in 1856 and established a ranch in 1857. Morgan Territory Road is

Interstate 210 the Foothill Freeway

The combined Interstate 210/California State Route 210 corridor of the Foothill Freeway is approximately 85.31-miles.  The Interstate 210/California State Route 210 corridor begins at Interstate 5 at the northern outskirts of Los Angeles and travels east to Interstate 10 in Redlands of San Bernardino County.  Interstate 210 is presently signed on the 44.9-mile segment of the Foothill Freeway between Interstate 5 and California State Route 57.  California State Route 210 makes up the remaining 40.41 miles of the Foothill Freeway east to Interstate 10.  Interstate 210 is still classified by the Federal Highway Administration as existing on what is now signed as California State Route 57 from San Dimas south to Interstate 10.  The focus of this blog will mostly be on the history of Interstate 210 segment of the Foothill Freeway.   Part 1; the history of Interstate 210 and California State Route 210 Interstate 210 (I-210) was approved as a chargeable Interstate during September of

Clovis "Gateway To The Sierras" sign and Tarpey Depot

Within Oldtown Clovis a fixture of the original alignment of California State Route 168 can be found in the form of the  "Clovis Gateway To The Sierras" sign. The sign was erected along Clovis Avenue in 1940 and was in use along California State Route 168 until the highway was relocated circa 1999-2001. Nearby Tarpey Deport can be found at the northeast corner of Clovis Avenue and 4th Street. The depot was constructed in 1892 as part of the San Joaquin Valley Railroad between Fresno and Friant. The depot structure was one previously located at the southeast corner of Clovis Avenue and Ashlan Avenue. Part 1; the history of the Gateway To The Sierras sign The "Clovis Gateway To The Sierras" sign located in Oldtown Clovis along Clovis Avenue between 4th Street and 5th Street. During 1933 Legislative Route Number 76 was extended with a second segment plotted between Huntington Lake and Fresno. The new segment passed through Oldtown Clovis westbound via Tollhouse R