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

California State Route 232

This past month I drove the entirety of California State Route 232 in Ventura County. CA 232 is an approximately 4 miles State Highway aligned on Vineland Avenye which begins near Saticoy at CA 118 and traverses southwest to US Route 101 in Oxnard.  The alignment of CA 232 was first adopted into the State Highway System in 1933 as Legislative Route Number 154 according to CAhighways.org. CAhighways.org on LRN 154 As originally defined LRN 154 was aligned from LRN 9 (future CA 118) southwest to LRN 2/US 101 in El Rio.  This configuration of LRN 154 between CA 118/LRN 9 and US 101/LRN 2 can be seen on the 1935 California Division of Highways Map of Ventura County. 1935 Ventura County Highway Map According to CAhighways.org the route of LRN 154 was extended west from US 101/LRN 2 to US 101A/LRN 60 in 1951.  Unfortunately State Highway Maps do not show this extension due to it being extremely small. During the 1964 State Highway Renumbering LRN 154 was assigned CA 232.  Of n

Former US Route 50 and the South Lincoln Highway from Folsom east to Placerville

The corridor of Folsom of Sacramento County east to Placerville of El Dorado County has been a long established corridor of overland travel dating back to the California Gold Rush.  The Folsom-Placerville corridor was once part of the path of the Lake Tahoe Wagon Road which became the first California State Highway and later the South Lincoln Highway.  In time the South Lincoln Highway's surface alignment was inherited by US Route 50.  The Folsom-Placerville corridor also includes the communities of; Clarksville, Shingle Springs and El Dorado. Part 1; the history of the Lake Tahoe Wagon Road, South Lincoln Highway and US Route 50 through Folsom-Placerville Folsom is located on the American River/Lake Natoma of eastern Sacramento County.  That lands now occupied by the City of Folsom were part of Rancho Rio de los Americanos prior to the finding of gold at Sutter's Mill during 1848.  During the California Gold Rush the lands of Rancho Rio de los Americanos were purchased by Jose

US Route 101 through Gaviota Pass

US Route 101 in the Santa Ynez Mountains of Santa Barbara County, California passes through Gaviota Pass.  Gaviota Pass is most well known for being part of El Camino Real and the namesake Gaviota Tunnel which opened during 1953.  Since 1964 Gaviota Pass and US Route 101 have also carried a multiplex of California State Route 1.   Part 1; the history of the Gaviota Pass corridor Gaviota Pass is historic path of travel through the Santa Ynez Mountains of Santa Barbara County.  Gavoita Pass was a known route through the Santa Ynez Mountains which was utilized by the Chumash tribes before the arrival of Europeans.  Gaviota Pass was first explored by Spanish during the 1769 Portola Expedition of Las Californias.  The Portola Expedition opted to follow the coastline northward fearing that the established Chumash path through Gaviota Pass was too narrow to traverse.  In time Gaviota Pass became a favored established path of Spanish travel which bypassed the hazardous coastline as part of El