https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=9088

Closed to to scouring around the supports & they declared state of emergency to get repair work underway asap, but this is pretty bad.

12/3/2013 2:25:29 PM

Wow. Pretty bad as it is, but if they don't get this fixed by next spring, people are going to lose their asses when the tourism season gets fucked.

12/3/2013 2:33:08 PM

Definitely bad for those that rely on tourism, but it's the price you pay for constructing such things in a highly dynamic environment.

12/3/2013 3:06:42 PM

^To be fair the press release mentions that the current bridge was designed for a 30 year lifespan and it's currently 50 years old, so...

12/3/2013 3:11:55 PM

And DOT has been working to replace it for 20 years and spent 56 million already.

Drop this right in the lap of the SELC. They are continuing to file lawsuits and injunctions against DOT/DENR etc because they want a 17-mile long bridge to circumvent the Pea Island Wildlife Refuge! DOT has the cash to build a 2.8 mile long replacement and already have that approved at a 200-million dollar price tag. The long bridge would be well over a billion dollars, but would allow them to close the north end of the island, which is what they want. They are the same group that has been lobbying to end road reconstruction on NC 12 and to end all beach driving on the Outer Banks.

12/3/2013 3:22:32 PM

The DOT had contracts ready to let in the 80's for that bridge, part of this problem is on the state reallocating funds decades ago. The new lawsuit BS hasn't set things back much, a lot of it is on the state removing funding each time they start design.

The 17-mile "long bridge" option is the only solution if you want road access, IMO they should just increase ferry facilities (but I know that dredging is a big issue through there, so maybe its not a good long-term solution either). I think the bridge design they decided on is just a 10-20 year solution.

At least they will be running 4 ferries, hopefully it doesn't hurt tourism too badly.

12/3/2013 3:54:02 PM

Quote :

"Pea Island Wildlife Refuge!"

Yeah, nothing says 'Wildlife Refuge' like having a big-ass bridge/road plowing through it!

The amount of herp derp displayed by the state in order to prop up their idea (or rather, the idea of developers) of what the Outer Banks should look like or will look like in the future is hilarious.

12/3/2013 5:49:20 PM

the only reason we don't have the 17 mile long bridge is because rich people with property on the sound don't want to see it, its the better option. even if you don't care about environmental issues, its better because it doesn't have the same scouring problems (the new bridge will have the same problems bonner bridge has)

12/3/2013 6:17:32 PM

the 17 mile route will have the same scouring issues - any route that crosses the Oregon Inlet is subject to them.

12/3/2013 9:14:56 PM

^evidence? I'm being genuine here

Scour has a lot of factors but one of the biggest is velocity of water moving sround the bridge, moving the bridge further out or in(and thus a longer distance) will reduce the velocity of water moving past the bridge (and reduce scour).

I'm a huge supporter of the lower outer banks tourism/fishing/travel industry, but we need to be aware of diminishing returns and factor that into our returns of building/continuing the status quo of the bonner bridge

Paging wdprice3 and his bridge expertise

12/3/2013 10:13:56 PM

the bridge takes off from a nearly identical spot near Oregon Inlet marina and lands at the washout spot At Mirlo Beach/Rodanthe where the island has been sawed in half numerous times by previous storms. It increases the risk of scouring, not reducing it as claimed.

The bridge not only supplies transportation to the island but electricity as well. A 17 mile route makes electrical delivery via the bridge practically infeasible.

The inlet will probably get closed in by the next major hurricane to hit the area after the bridge is built and the Buxton/Canadian hole inlet will probably open back up in its place.

12/3/2013 11:43:27 PM

Ethereal passageways on my Outer Banks? It's more likely than you think!

12/4/2013 7:57:46 AM

Thanks Democrats.

12/4/2013 8:44:50 AM

^^^ the bridge they are building takes off from basically the same spot and stays west of bonner bridge and does not follow the curve, but the 17 mile long bridge was going to head out from an even more western position than that (basically before the fishing center).

but regardless, this is on the north end where sand is deposited; the 17 mile bridge would then curve out into the sound and be almost in the middle of the sound until making landfall again in a couple people's backyards on the sound side in Salvo. It would not have nearly the same scouring effects.

[Edited on December 4, 2013 at 8:52 AM. Reason : .]

12/4/2013 8:48:34 AM

I haven't looked at the details for the Bonner bridge in quite a while, but the alignment of the 17-mile alternative at least provided lower risk of scour, along most of the alignment. I recall some areas being about the same risk of scour; I recall none being increased. TF & dtr are correct on that the primary location for scour is in the inlet throat/plane of the throat and that avoiding that area really helps to decrease the risk of scour. However, the difficult part here is shifting sands and channels, which can often reach into the sound quite a ways and still cause a good bit of scour. Not to mention, we are still talking about hard infrastructure being placed on moving sandbars. Elusis is talking about the southern end of the 17-mile alternative, and yes, there has been a good bit of sand movement in that area. So in a way, there is an "increased" risk of scour there, but not nearly as bad as at the inlet

Admittedly, I know little about the environmental side of things at the refuge. But my overall opinion, given the issue with scour, the moving of the islands, and sea level rise (OMG he said it!), we are quite dumb as a population to continue to throw millions and billions at these sandbars. The reality is, is that there is no solution with today's technology to build safe and secure hard infrastructure that has any reasonable lifespan.

However, knowing that the population won't just let it go, I won't say the 17 mile option is best, but at least something similar in alignment around the inlet is better. If you really wanted to reduce the risk, you'd start the bridge further north and tie it back in midway along the island (better in terms of scour), keeping a large curve to provide some distance from the inlet.

I will also say that suspended piles were found years ago. I guess those were "repaired"; I don't remember.

I think the most effective long-term solution is a shallow-draft ferry system from island to island, with minimal infrastructure on the sound side for ferry landings. Dredging would still be needed, but less so than with the massive ferries.

eh, let me clarify that: DOT already uses shallow draft ferries (4') and I'm pretty sure the dredging depth required is 12'. I recall smaller ferries with about 1/2 the draft and a change in laws to allow 6' dredging.

[Edited on December 4, 2013 at 9:21 AM. Reason : .]

12/4/2013 9:12:50 AM

yeah, and they already have ferry docks on both sides ready to go and ferries on the way.

Quote :

"I won't say the 17 mile option is best, but at least something similar in alignment around the inlet is better. If you really wanted to reduce the risk, you'd start the bridge further north and tie it back in midway along the island (better in terms of scour), keeping a large curve to provide some distance from the inlet."

i'm confused about this though, because what you are describing is the alignment of the 17 mile long bridge. It would leave from farther North and would land in Salvo (which is midway along the island at the widest part).

12/4/2013 9:31:46 AM

That bridge currently handles an average of 5,000 cars a day. You want to tell me how a ferry system that could handle even close to that capacity is better for the people on the island, the economy, water pollution, fuel costs, etc?

Bottom line they could build 4-5 bridges with the current 2.8 mile long solution for the cost of one mammoth 17 mile long bridge. And what is the lifespan on that 17 mile bridge? 100+ years? It would need to be a lot longer lifespan to begin to make it cost competitive with the shorter/cheaper bridge options. I love the ferry system and think they are a blast to ride, but this is very impractical for Hatteras Island.

12/4/2013 9:37:31 AM

they will have to build 2 or 3 bridges and a causeway instead of the long bridge, and they will have shorter life spans. and in regards to capacity: Hatteras-Ocracoake ferry carries a million people a year so no, I don't think a ferry will hurt things too much.



[Edited on December 4, 2013 at 9:57 AM. Reason : our ferry system operate with a positive net benefit (tourism expenditures-costs)]

12/4/2013 9:50:20 AM

^^^unless there is another long-bridge alternative, the 17-mile bridge pretty much started at the same location as the current bridge at the north and ended at mirlo. I'm saying it should start further north and end in the middle of the refuge.

12/4/2013 1:53:50 PM

that's the newer long-bridge option, the first one landed close to Salvo

the problem with landing it in the middle of the refuge is that it would be cutoff from Rodanthe every time there was a storm. Anytime we have a hurricane or large turn, an inlet opens at the S-Curve and the state has to quickly fill it in before the federal government decides its an inlet. We need to let that open, and remove the road through the refuge so that the sand can migrate south west, which requires landing the bridge at least south of the s-curve (which is why they went with the current landing spot, right near the ferry). I went to one of the early public comment meetings because my family has property out there, no one wanted to look at the long bridge.

[Edited on December 4, 2013 at 2:56 PM. Reason : at that meeting they said there have been at least 10 proposed alignments since the early 80's]

12/4/2013 2:54:21 PM

ok; that doesn't sound familiar, but I can't really say I've ever been that involved with this bridge.
I remember the 17, 14, 9, and 6 mile alternatives, and then just replacing what's there.

I agree that the further south it goes, the better for service, due to washouts. I was saying it was better to land it in the refuge from a structural standpoint of the bridge alone.

12/4/2013 3:07:32 PM

no matter what they do, you can't control mother nature.

the bridge is failing because of the wash out and erosion....kinda hard to fight that. The length of the bridge doesn't really determine how long it'll last.

I go to Hatteras Island/Nat'l Seashore multiple times a year, but I understand the viewpoint of the anti-bridge crowd. The area needs to be preserved, if we just keep building bridges everywhere then eventually the area becomes less natural and just more of a 'tourist destination'

The free market will determine which business adapt and survive.

But as long as there are permanent residents, it seems the state will keep a road to the island.

12/4/2013 7:11:32 PM

I don't feel bad for anyone that decides to live on a moving barrier island and then is inconvenienced when nature does what nature do.

12/4/2013 8:08:31 PM

Quote :

"I don't feel bad for anyone that decides to live on a moving barrier island and then is inconvenienced when nature does what nature do."

12/4/2013 9:42:18 PM

add some groins and seawalls... stop that island in its tracks.

12/4/2013 10:16:11 PM

yeh, save 1 island while getting rid of another!

there is a reason that such infrastructure has been illegal in NC and many other states.

12/5/2013 8:24:13 AM

Current ferry route from mainland to Rodanthe is a two hour ride...it's not analogous to the Ocracoke - Hatteras route. Fuel/pollution arguments aside, from a capacity perspective it can serve it's emergency purpose during this time of year, but the bridge is a necessary function of the local/state economy from roughly late March to late October.

iirc latest numbers showing Hatteras' contribution carved out was in 2011; HI accounted for around $200m of Dare County's $877m in tourism spending and pitched in some $20m in state & local taxes.

Image from the sonar scan. Pilings must be in 20ft of sand minimum to be considered structurally safe.

12/5/2013 10:09:30 AM

The dot has solutions for new inlet and mirlo already in progress. They are doing a bridge about 1.5 miles long at new inlet and a longer one going from the stable section north of the s curves and out to the west and loops around to come in near the community center, avoiding the whole mirlo hellhole. With the ferries going from stumpy point to rodanthe able to only get 380 cars each way every day, we can't even get all of the people that need to cross the bridge for work across, let alone the 3 hrs added time for each trip making it not feasable at all. The selc wants high speed ferries? There isn't enough water, there aren't any spots to handle terminals, and the cost to build the ferries themselves would be more than the bridges. Hell, the 50 car sound class ferries are over 5 million each, and are slow as balls if you're talking about going from either Oregon inlet or the area on the causeway all the way down to waves.

12/5/2013 10:09:35 AM

They could build a ferry dock just north of the Oregon Inlet Fishing center and have ferries that runs from there to Rodanthe, it would be a very short crossing.

12/5/2013 10:19:11 AM

or we finally give into logic and say that maintaining such infrastructure on shifting and disappearing sand bars isn't viable, feasible, or sound judgement for long-term operation. I realize that the islands contribute a good bit to the economy, but just because we say omg it's jerbs! doesn't mean the islands will stay put. It's time people accept the truth that access to these islands will some day be accessible by boat only and likely not even ferries.

12/5/2013 11:11:25 AM

yes the islands migrate, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have use of them. bridges are not permanent so rebuild them with island migration in mind.

12/5/2013 11:22:00 AM

I never said don't use them. We need to rethink how they are used. And you talk as if rebuilding bridges is cheap and easy. As if roadways on the islands don't require rebuilding every few years. As if rebuilding the islands themselves every few years is feasible.

12/5/2013 11:28:00 AM

I completely see your point and agree to the extent that many of our islands are vastly overbuilt (holden, topsail, etc), but it's not like the islands migrate faster than the life expectancy of bridges.

[Edited on December 5, 2013 at 11:43 AM. Reason : ]

12/5/2013 11:43:12 AM

^5 where would it go north of the fishing center? There's not a really good spot for it due to how shallow it is in there. And the run to Rodanthe isn't exactly short. It'd be at least 17 miles, the length of the Stumpy Point to Rodanthe run right now which takes nearly 2 hrs. These smaller boats can barely get through as it is and are churning up sand and hitting bottom. If NCDOT bought 75-100 car ferries they'd probably draft 8-10ft, and if you go to jet or surface drive you may cut that down by a bit (current river class boats they are using are just over 6ft draft). If we get an east or north east wind the sound in these areas drops by a foot or two, so now we have to maintain an even deeper channel than it naturally wants, so we're stuck dredging somewhere no matter what.

^4 Even if you ignore the tourism side of things, which you can't, you've now stranded thousands of residents many of whom have lived on the island (soundside) for generations.


The long bridge is the best long term solution, but not without significant funding from somewhere. We're talking well over a billion dollars to get this done and probably close to a decade of construction. What do we do until then? If nothing gets done more quickly the island will be dead so the long bridge would be useless.

[Edited on December 5, 2013 at 11:45 AM. Reason : d]

12/5/2013 11:45:32 AM

Quote :

" Even if you ignore the tourism side of things, which you can't, you've now stranded thousands of residents many of whom have lived on the island (soundside) for generations. "

and none of that stops the migration or disappearance of sandbars. Look, I understand the economical and social side of this. But that has no bearing on the geological side of the debate. Lots of houses are now gone. Large portions of the islands are gone. Maintaining transportation infrastructure is hugely expensive, a constant process, and damaging to the environment. I'm not in favor of losing a state treasure and I don't think abandoning the islands is a good idea. I just think it's time we start phasing into a less human-built condition and use the islands as they are. People will have to make the call if they want to live at such a place. Where your house and property may be gone after the next big storm. Where it takes hours to get to the mainland.

I have no doubt a bridge will be built. I have no doubt it will likely not be the best option. I have no doubt that it will suffer the same issues. I have no doubt the bridge will be useless when storms create new inlets. I have no doubt that homes, businesses, and property will disappear into to the ocean. I have no doubt we will keep flushing billions down the toilet ocean. I just wish some of you people would recognize the real issue and fight for smarter solutions.

12/5/2013 11:59:40 AM

Quote :

"^5 where would it go north of the fishing center? There's not a really good spot for it due to how shallow it is in there. And the run to Rodanthe isn't exactly short. It'd be at least 17 miles, the length of the Stumpy Point to Rodanthe run right now which takes nearly 2 hrs. These smaller boats can barely get through as it is and are churning up sand and hitting bottom. If NCDOT bought 75-100 car ferries they'd probably draft 8-10ft, and if you go to jet or surface drive you may cut that down by a bit (current river class boats they are using are just over 6ft draft). If we get an east or north east wind the sound in these areas drops by a foot or two, so now we have to maintain an even deeper channel than it naturally wants, so we're stuck dredging somewhere no matter what. "

it can be built right be the center, the channel would not need to be any deeper since Hatteras class ferries draft 4' and River class draft 6'

I didn't mean to say Rodanthe, I meant to say Pea Island or Douglas Island. It would be a crossing comparable in distance to the Southport-Fort Fisher crossing which takes 30 minutes

[Edited on December 5, 2013 at 12:19 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2013 12:15:53 PM

Quote :

"and none of that stops the migration or disappearance of sandbars"

Ocracoke, Hatteras Village, and Roanoke island have been stable sand bars for as long as white people have been coming to this country.

12/5/2013 12:49:50 PM

The problem is the OBX should have never been developed in the first place. It is made up temporary sandbars as opposed to a permanent landmass. They shift, they erode, they disappear, and they reform.

12/5/2013 1:00:47 PM

We could take this argument to a much greater level then. People that live near Crabtree Creek should expect flooding, so we should never rebuild there. Damn roads and development in the mountains are subject to mudslides and avalanches. We should not rebuild the Blue Ridge Parkway or I-95 when rocks fall on it. And don't even get me started about people who live in Tornado Alley and want services rebuilt after a tornado hits. They knew the chances when they built there.

12/5/2013 1:09:24 PM

I agree with some of that to some extent.

But that's a hugely different than building a house on a sandbar

12/5/2013 1:14:00 PM

My point is, don't throw stones at glass houses on a sandbar when yours is in a flood plain.

12/5/2013 1:16:20 PM

Are you familiar with a FIRM map?

12/5/2013 1:19:22 PM

my home isn't in a floodplain. I shall continue to heave stones.

^don't bring the idea of applying logic to a homesite. he may croak.

[Edited on December 5, 2013 at 1:20 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2013 1:19:42 PM

Quote :

"But that's a hugely different than building a house on a sandbar"

yeah, people the built a house on a sandbar actually have a nice view, unlike tornado alley.

12/5/2013 1:50:36 PM

that's not very logical (comparing a sandbar to "tornado alley")

12/5/2013 2:09:46 PM

https://www.facebook.com/NCDOT

12/5/2013 5:15:48 PM

Building on a sandbar is just stupidity. It is not the same thing as the everyday risk we all have from disaster.

12/5/2013 5:36:29 PM

Living in California puts you at an above average risk of a catastrophic earthquake.

Living on a mountain puts you at an above average risk of a mudslide.

could go on and on. . . .

12/5/2013 5:40:37 PM

That was kinda my point. If a quake knocks down the Golden Gate Bridge, would you say just use the ferry it's too risky to build again and waste our tax dollars? A lot of places we think are "safe" have other inherent dangers which make building and investing in public infastructure perhaps as foolhardy. The government totally bankrolled rebuilding Princeville even though it was in a floodplain and almost totally wiped out by Floyd and was advised that it should not be rebuilt by almost everybody. Was there any huge net benefit to the state for that? Princeville is a corrupt dump, but we open up the coffers for that. Not sure how this is much different, or even New Orleans after Katrina.

12/5/2013 6:08:10 PM

This is different because it's about rich, white folks.

12/5/2013 6:48:36 PM