20150955 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20101124

CONCURRENCE POINT 2
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD

Mainland Approach Looking East
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mainland Approach Looking East
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B-4929
DECEMBER 2010
Swing Span Looking South
Swing Span Looking North

CONCURRENCE POINT 2
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
Swing Span at Bridge Tender Looking West
Southside Park Area looking West
Open Swing Span Looking West
Island Approach Looking West
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B-4929
DECEMBER 2010

CONCURRENCE POINT 2
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
Citizens discussing the study alternatives with the
NCDOT Project Manager (Michele James) at Citizens
Informational Workshop (CIW) #2
Project Team Member (Edith Peters) explaining the
study alternatives to citizens at CIW #2
Citizens looking at the maps at CIW #2
Local Elected Officials and Town
Representatives listening to the voiceover
PowerPoint presentation at CIW #2
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. 8-4929
DECEMBER 2010

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
Memo to: File
From: Daniel D. Holderman, PE
November 1, 2010
State Bridge Management Engineer
Subject: TIP Project B-4926, Replacement of Bridge #16 Pender County
Repair/Rehabilitation Evaluation
Description of Existing Bridge:
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECRETARY
The existing Bridge was constructed in 1955 to an unknown design load (likely H-15). Current
design load is HS-25. It is comprised a 250' thru truss swing span and 6 reinforced concrete
deck girder approach spans, 35 feet long. The clear roadway width of the bridge is 24'0". There
are three foot wide sidewalks on each side, making the clear distance between rails, 30'-0". The
vertical clearance of the truss swing span is 15'-1". The bridge has an average daily traffic of
11,000, with 7% of these vehicles being trucks.
The condition of the bridge is "fair", with areas of deterioration throughout the bridge. There
have been many repairs made to the structure and swing span machinery over the years. The
bridge is "structurally deficient", "functionally obsolete", "fracture critical", and has a
sufficiency rating of 2 out of a possible 100.
The Bridge is presently posted at 14 tons for single vehicle, and 18 tons for a truck tractor with
semi-trailer. The controlling members are:
Bridge Component
Concrete deck girder spans
Truss floorbeams
Truss
Condition of Superstructure:
Postma
14 tons SV, 18 tons TTST
21 tons SV, 25 tons TTST
No posting required
1. Truss has deterioration in many members.
2. Many truss rivets and bolts are deteriorated.
Truss concrete filled grating is in poor condition, being heavily worn.
Truss not adequately protected from vehicular damage, having only a light
hand/traffic rail between traffic and the truss members.
5. Concrete deck on the east approach spans in fair condition, with hairline cracks top
and bottom.
MAILING ADDRESS:
BRIDGE MANAGEMENT UNIT
1565 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1565
TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
FAX: [phone] BERYL ROAD
RALEIGH, NC 27606
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
6. "Church rail" on the east approach spans in poor condition, with spalls, exposed
reinforcing steel, and some areas "leaning", indicating the reinforcing steel anchoring
the railing to the sidewalk is extensively deteriorated.
7. A gusset plate rating has not been done yet. This will need to be done to determine
capacity of the gusset plates.
8. The truss span is badly in need of painting.
Condition of Substructure:
1. All concrete bents of approach spans and truss have spalls, cracking, and exposed
reinforcing steel.
Concrete piles are spalling and have horizontal and vertical hairline cracks,
The piles of the control house have deterioration. The lower portions of the piles had
extensive deterioration and had concrete collars added a few years ago, but the piles
still need replacing.
Condition of Swing-span machinery;
1. Most machinery is in fair condition except as noted.
2. Centering latch assemblies at each end are bent and need to be replaced.
3. A number of bearings on the wedge drive shafts need to be replaced. The bearings are
wom, causing misalignment and wobbling of the shafts.
4. A number of gears are worn and have fins which note misalignment.
5. All of the balance wheels at the center pivot need to be repaired. All bearings have a
loss of more than 0.005" and some are pushed out `/<".
The present span brake system is inadequate. The brakes need to be repaired and have
covers placed over them to keep them clean and dry.
The balance track at the center pivot pier is deteriorated and needs replacement.
Condition of Electrical Equipment:
1. The operator's house is presently in poor condition, being constructed of timber and
concrete. As described in the Substructure summary, the steel support piles are
deteriorated and need to be replaced. A new control house would be needed to house a
new control system, enlarge the operator area, provide better visibility and provide a
control house that meets AASHTO requires for non-flammable floors and materials.
2. Although the electrical control system is in relatively good condition, it is a 50 year old
system that has become unsupportable when repairs are needed. The control system needs
replacement with a new flux-vector programmable logic computer based system, along
with a new span drive motor, span and machinery brakes, span limit switches and position
transmitter, and new wedge motor.
3. At present, traffic control is composed of overhead traffic signals and warning gates only.
There are no positive barriers installed at this location. This does not comply with
AASHTO design requirements for moveable span bridges. Anyone that would drive
through a warning gate arm would have an unimpeded path into the water when the span is
open.
4. Consideration should be given to providing a parking deck for the operator and
maintenance personnel. At present, they must park off the bridge in a small parking area
at the west end of the bridge.
5. New submarine cables need to be installed for both the center pier and for the far side
barrier, gate, and stop light control.
6. A new closed circuit camera system needs to be installed for vehicular and waterway
traffic surveillance, to replace the mirror system now being used.
Repair/rehabilitation to raise posting to legal. This option will extend life by 25 years, but
annual maintenance will be required after 10th year.
Work includes
a. Remove swing span to off site to allow work on span. $150,000
b. Structural steel repairs and strengthening of swing span
members. $350,000
c. Replace floorbeams on swing span. $750,000
d. Replace roadway stringers on swing span. $750,000
e. Replace grid floor on swing span. $500,000
f Clean and paint swing span. $750,000
g. Replace existing control house. $250,000
h. Replacement of swing span machinery. $250,000
i. Replacement of existing electrical control system. $500,000
j. Add new traffic barrier gates and traffic gates at swing span. $300,000
k. Pile/substructure repairs. $350,000
1. Provide traffic rail on swing span. $200,000
in. Replace submarine cables. $350,000
n. Closed circuit camera system $50,000
o. Replace 6 east approach spans. $3,500,000
p. Add sidewalk to swing span. $500,000
q. Replace fender system. $1,500,000
Subtotal $11,000,000
Engineering & Misc. (20%) $2,200,000
Traffic control $300,000
Total Repair/Rehabilitation Scheme $13,500,000
This repair/rehabilitation scheme will extend the life of the bridge by approximately 25 years.
The bridge will still be "functionally obsolete" and be classified as "fracture critical" due to the
swing span being a truss. It will have a sufficiency rating of approximately 28 when work is
complete, much below 80 which is the required sufficiency rating needed to be able to use
Federal Highway Bridge Program funds, the funds NCDOT normally utilizes for this type work.
The work will necessitate the bridge being out of service for approximately 9 months during the
replacement of the 6 east approach spans, rehabilitate the swing span, and construct a new
control house.
Due to the high cost of this scheme and all the reasons in the previous paragraph, the SBMU does
not recommend this scheme.
PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA (FUNCTIONAL)
TIP: B-4929
STATE PROJECT: 40233.1.1
F. A. PROJECT: BRSTP-0050(10) PAGE: 1 of 3
COUNTY: Ponder DIVISION:3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Bridge No 16 on NC50INC210 over the DATE: March 1, 2010
Intracostal Waterways In Surf City REV: October 19, 2010
PREPARED BY: RS&H
ROUTE NC501NC210 NC50INC210 ' NCSOINC210 ROLAND AVE
TIE-IN REFERENCE
LINE .___ -L-LINE -L-BRIDGE -DET-BRIDGE.. _ -Y-LINE.._ OR REMARKS
TRAFFIC DATA
ADT LET YR = 2015 15-15-00 15,500 15,500 • see note 1
ADT DESIGN YR = 2035 29,100 29,100 29,100 • see note 1
TTST 1 1 1 1
DUALS 2 2 2 2
DHV 9 9 9 9
DIR 55 55 55 55
CLASSIFICATION Major Collector Major Collector Major Collector Major Collector
TERRAIN TYPE Level Level Level Level 14D
DESIGN SPEED mph 40 mph 40 mph 30 mph 40 mph
POSTED SPEED mph 35 mph 35 mph 25 mph 35 mph
PROP. R/W WIDTH k Varies Varies NIA Varies
CONTROL OF ACCESS N N N N
RUMBLE STRIPS Y/N N N N N
TYPICAL SECTION TYPE C&G CB.G Shoulder Shoulder 1.2A
LANE WIDTH k 12' 12' 12' 12' 1-3A
SIDEWALKS YIN N Y N N
BICYCLE LANES Y/N Y Y N N
MEDIAN WIDTH k NIA NIA NIA NIA
MED. PROTECT. GR/BARRIER NIA NIA N/A NIA
SHOULDER WIDTH total
MEDIAN ft NIA NIA NIA NIA
OUTSIDE w/o GR ft NIA NIA 6' 6' 14B F-1
OUTSIDE w/ GR ft NIA NIA NIA 9' 14B F-1
PAVED SHOULDER
OUTSIDE TOTAL/FDPS ft 4' 4' 6' 6'14' 1-00 F-1
MEDIAN TOTAL/FDPS ft NIA NIA NIA NIA
GRADE
MAX. 6% 6% 6% 6%
MIN. 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%
K VALUE
SAG 64 64 37 64 Exhibit 3-75 AASHTO
CREST 44 44 19 44 Exhibit 3-72 AASHTO
HORIZ. ALIGN.
MAX.SUPER. 4% 4% 4% 4% 1-15
MIN. RADIUS it 533 533 250 533 Exhibit 3-25 AASHTO
SPIRAL Y/N N N N N
CROSS SLOPES
PAVEMENT 2% 2% 2% 2%
PAVED SHOULDER Rd XSlo a Brd XSlo Brd XSlo 4% per NCDOT request
BERM 2% N/A NIA N/A 1-7D F-3
MEDIAN DITCH NIA NIA NIA N/A
DITCH TYPICAL ABC NIA NIA NIA C 1-2A
CLEAR ZONEk 18' NIA NIA 18' 1-4N
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 1 2 3 4
NOTES:
1. Traffic volumes vary by Alternative. See B4929: Topsail Island Bridge Replacement Functional Roadway Plans
B4929 design_assumptions.xls
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA (FUNCTIONAL)
TIP: B-4929
PAGE: 2 of 3
-jj - ?-x --
ROUTE Js ;-- '+
-- . - `iNC50
"+ •
• TOPSAIL DR "=NC210°
:"
NEW RIVER DR •KINSTON AVE&

CHARLOTTE AVE '• `-
(iOLDS80R0 AVE
TM-x...,
REFERENCE
LINE--'! ---Y-LINE. --Y-LINE -"-Y-LINE "--Y-LINE ""• OR REMARKS
TRAFFIC DATA
ADT LET YR = ' see note 1 ' see note 1 ' see note 1 ' see note 1
ADT DESIGN YR see note 1 ' see note 1 ' see note 1 ' see note 1
TTST 1' 1 1 1
DUALS 2 2 2 2
DHV 9 9 9 9
DIR 55 65 65
CLASSIFICATION Ma or Collector Local Roads Local Road
TERRAIN TYPE Level Level Level 1-1D
DESIGN SPEED mph 40m 40 m h 30 m h 30 m h
POSTED SPEED m h F 35 m h 25 m h 25 m h
PROP. RIN/ WIDTH ft Varies Varies Varies
CONTROL OF ACCESS N N N
RUMBLE STRIPS YIN N N N
TYPICAL SECTION TYPE Shoulder Shoulder Shoulder 1-2A
LANE WIDTHk 12 12' 12' 12' 1-3A
SIDEWALKS /N N N N N
BICYCLE LANES YIN Y N N N
MEDIAN WIDTH it NIA N/A NIA N/A
MED. PROTECT. GR/BARRIER N/A NIA N/A NIA
SHOULDER WIDTH total
MEDIAN it NIA N/A NIA NIA
OUTSIDE w/o GRft 6' 6' 6' 6' 1.4B, F-11
OUTSIDE w/ GR ft 9' S. 9' 9' 1-413, F-1
PAVED SHOULDER
OUTSIDE TOTAUFDPS it 6'/4' 6'/4' 6'/4' 6'l4' 1-40 F-1
MEDIAN TOTAUFDPS ft N/A NIA N/A N/A
GRADE
MAX. 6% 6% 6% 6%
MIN. 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%
K VALUE
SAG 64 64 37 37 Exhibit 3-75 AASHTO
CREST 44 44 19 19 Exhibit 3-72 AASHTO
HORIZ. ALIGN.
MAX. SUPER.
MIN. RADIUS ft

SPIRAL YIN 4%

533
N 4%

633
N 4%

250
N 4%

250
N 1.15

Exhibit 3-25 AASHTO
CROSS SLOPES
PAVEMENT 2% 2% 2% 2%
PAVED SHOULDER 4% 4% 4% 4% per NCDOT request
TURF SHOULDER N/A N/A N/A N/A 1-7D F-3
MEDIAN DITCH N/A NIA N/A N/A
DITCH TYPICAL ABC C C C C 1-2A
CLEARZONEft 18' 18' 18' 18' 1-4N
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 4 4 4 4
NOTES:
1. Traffic volumes vary by Alternative. See B-4929: Topsail Island Bridge Replacement Functional Roadway Plans
B4929 design_assumptions.xls
PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA (FUNCTIONAL)
TIP: B-4929
PAGE: 3 of 3
REFERENCE
OR REMARKS
SCALE:
SHEET SIZE:
PLANS 1"=100'
PROFILES 1"=100' horiz.
INTERCH. DETAIL
CROSS-SECTIONS horiz.
PLANS 42" x 106" Roll Plot
INTERCH. DETAIL
CROSS-SECTIONS
BRIDGES and/or CULVERTS:
TYPE(SINGLEIDUAL/RCBC) Varies
SIZE (LENGTHX LVIDTHXHT) Varies
LOCATION
SKETCH #
HORIZ.CLEARANCE
VERT. CLEARANCE
DESIGN EXCEPTIONS:
1"=20' veil.
vert.
NOTES: (SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS)
CONCURRENCE POINT 2
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting Aareement
Concurrence Point 2: Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward
Project Name/Description: Topsail Island Bridge Replacement, Pender County, NC
TIP Project No.: B-4929
Federal Aid Project No.: BRSTP-50 (10)
WBS No.: 40233.1.1
Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward
Detailed study alternatives to be carried forward are Alternatives 4, 5, 5R, 6, 7, 11, and 17 for
the referenced project.
The Project Team met and concurred on this date of December 14, 2010:
USACE NCDOT
USEPA USFWS
NCDCR NCDWQ
FHWA NCWRC
USCG NCDCM
NCDMF NMFS
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B-4929
DECEMBER2010
O N
r LL
CV O
0 r
W
U w
O ul
w
a
0
(.Do
ZZ
P: Z)
V)O
xw
w o
F
w
0
O
N
N
Z w
YZ Z ww O
O mg r O O mse Z
g di N
o` ~ O > ol, F- N L U
C14 U C14 U
N Q N w r p z Z Q o, LLI N N w r NO Z 0 (-4 O LO
1 J Z O Z Z I J Z_ p Z U
Q ?o N p Z:5 mQ Z z
U x O O
? O a l7 F- I- F- o ?V c9a O O
Zw
0
W v Ci' U
O O W y0 w U
Z
w r W N Q N O F- W N O_ W
w Q ? IV {? J U Uz ?/ (/? Q H 1
Lu CL LL,
CL N ? C7 U ?}d (n N w Q UFO
_ No Fut 0 o U CLLuZ
~ O w (nU a o a wog
mg D z p mg D co
?
CL
N
N F Lq
O LL Ln
N
O
O
- if
ZZ
v~i O
w U'
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000o
O N
LL
N O
p. N
F -
F-: w
U w
O N
w
Q
0
o ZZ
V)o
n
Ww
V
K M
N =
V1
r
z a z V'
d
7
O M o O
F- I LL. > o O
Z oa ?w A U-
N O MO >
I O W
F- C-4 z
J N Z O Z Q z J C14 O Z w I Z w
Z I w
?U ?0 o O Ow0 ~U ?? °o Z Z >W j
w v U,n? u I O OZWw wZ
w vwi 2 ?? r I ~ UW?wDz>
p cn ?9N O I w NrQ3WQa
c cn > ? O
°- ? N IL J ) c u CL 0 N NO I J u a C LW a W cc
H o a ?:O H o f V Z0-z Ln
W F- LO N Nwo
CL CL
V) wu N F y0VUZ=O
CL ck? - 70Z 0? Z) zz u0
o CL
O
O
00 N = ?
N
o ZZ
hO
w0

c?
219@20w[go
NOV 2 4-2010
WEriapDS?aiosro? ana? ewwa+
CONCURRENCE MEETING
INFORMATION PACKET
FOR YOUR REVIEW
PRIOR TO MEETING ON
Tuesd
December 14., 2010
PROJECT ENGINEER
Michele James
TIP #6-4929
Please bring this packet
to the meeting.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
AGENDA
Eastern Concurrence Meeting
Tuesday December 14, 2010
Board Room, Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR
SECRETARY
3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. Michele James, Project Planning Engineer, PDEA Branch
TIP No. B-4929, Topsail Island Bridge, Pender County, Division 3.
Team Members:
Brad Shaver, USACE
Ron Lucas. FHWA
Gary Jordan, USFWS
David Wainwright, DWQ
Steve Sollod, DCM
Ron Sechler, NMF
Bill Brazier, USCG
Travis Wilson, WRC
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Rich Carpenter, DMF
Renee Gledhill-Early, SHPO
Don Eggert, RPO
Michele James, PDEA
NCDOT Technical Support Staff and Other Agency Staff:
Allen Pope, Division 3
Jack Provost, Division 3
Jerry Snead, Hydraulics
Tony Houser, Roadway
Judy James, ROW
Lee Moore, Roadway
Lonnie Brooks, Structure
Don Idol, Bridge Maintenance
Dan Holderman, Bridge Maintenance
Tyler Stanton, HEU
Ed Lewis, HEU
Steve Gurganus, HEU
Charles Cox, PDEA
Rob Hanson, PDEA
Missy Pair, PDEA
Greg Thorpe, PDEA
* The Purpose of this meeting is to reach CP2.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
IVEBSITE WWWNCDOTGOV
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

Nak) +t Ee
?y Zv,A)41)+fhn
m, el ?;bl 1a z11 (c Y- Vviskri(-
Vl3r
vhxz.? ? .nn? tJ
- g\r^ c\1 ttN. 2?3. it ?' ?MI 7csrrv 1?11wc-r `f S S-1,
i.7 ?1?• S d-.," frvu.l ?'?t%z- 50Yhi- cl lna ? U .C's i56\ -f ;ymiyw,,
r 1lT ? ? TI j i2 WTl'rZ C ?i? rg• C? ?'y 0? - V1CT ? f0.t,-
- ruxd d cc , ?, , w 1? ??w 11, m hwl e?
in SA 4- IbA
_ -OcT/?t{Wl} iv:l? ... tel*wr vt}c Or u•?leti?-
A?} . Io
f ? -00T ?? \ c auwr c?k i vn pr c?S of ?1?. ( 7

z
O
N
S
rU
rD
O
D
S
rD
LI)
rD
3
v
n
n
0)
rD
O
rD
LM
m
rD
O
O
O
C
Q
rD
Q
0
a ?
rt Q
S
O ? F)
rD n rt
3 -0 vD
c N C
A W C
O rD (D
O rr V1
O
(D
rD
rD
rD
7
N
3
O
N
3
n?
n
n
0)
c
Q
0
S
m
O
c
rD
rD
C
O_
O
-a
Un
O
C
O
Cl.
Lo
Q
rD
0)
m
rD
rD
rD
(i 1
d
n
n
a
r_
rD
Q
S
n?
(1Q
O
rD
O
c
O
CL
O_
rD
p c n L Z ° o o n L vDo o = U U W m o v v
rt ?-+' '6 OJ 0? rt. n' O O Q0 U0 d m
n a - `
Z5 Q) v M m
70
- n
= O C 3 W rD rD n
-0
O n
O
O
O
n O
Q
\ rt
`?
`
?
^ O
p rt
C C
O 3
m
co
co
N
m (D
m
r rh
v
C
LA O
v
a
-Q
O cn v
_
7 i
Q T
?.
T
?
C
C -
Q -
Q -
C
OQ
Cm N

O

t?
(D C f1 ?• .a ? `C LA

CA 7 S r T

O rD CO
C
?'
S
0^
S
O n
rt T
O
O
an v .
n
w ^
O
d (D
N j n
3
N
rD
rt -
O 'a
e
(1

CL
cu ar

0- Q
Ln _ ,
t r
i• rt

rD
O
(?

n

=
`
3
<

S
O
O
O
?
rD
N M
3
K
n
00
S
?,

.
rD
(n
O
O ° y O rD C
3 x
w 14 O O °' ? 3 n,
n N v " 7 vO O " O rD 0 '6 v v p

N
(7
OC
r
v
(D
O
N
O_
rn-r n
rt
-f'
Oq
LA
rD. v' rt C Ln Q (DD S O
V) CL -
S
O
C
-?'
N
?' 3

D
V
n pi
n
y N
a
0
3
c
o
x
0
0 rt
m

d
f+ lJt

0J n

.r rD _

to

0! O

to cr <

v CL <

nl Q 0)

S CL
rr
(D

CU
V1 LA
n

fD
n
(D (D

fD
°'
(D ::r

3 o-

(D
v
N 0
cu
O
1
V1 S
c
Q
-D
CD
CU
O
v
v
rD d
1

S w

rD 07
rD <
cu
c rD
(D
3•
c S
3

rD v
Ln
S
GO
S rD
O
C ?

rD
N

Ln

0- <
(D

.
''-'
N O
N
\

N

.

. N
CO
U7

rt
OR
-

In

O m

N
F-
Ln co
P

N
_ on W CO
Z <
M
-
o

N ti

,
E

= N

P N al .

?' .

O Ln

O

o7

(J r

W
Z W Ll - p p Z

N
Z N
O
LO
w
-
F,
N
D ?
(D
Q v W F--? N W lz
'.0
m
I?
r+
A

G1
O Cp A O
O
c

A

rD

=
Q N

O

1'

D 70
S N
L
Q1
N
N
V-?
OC
F-? F,
A

C
J I)

A

O
O

61
o o A D

,.
.
W
J
~• _
? S
A O
O ? M

< < W
o rn 1D D
T = N W w
a) N N N . . . . . O
O LO
M al
es
A
cn
0a W A O
O F
-
N D
O

(D
?
p O
?
A
Ui
w
W
Q1
?
N
O

D
= Q L71 <
N 0610 p °
00 o 0 o
p (nD
00 O W O W N 0 O NO rat
O GJ
< C)

p (D
2 CD
A Ln w
cn (-n
0~0
o
O
D
c
c F. N W 0 O iD A V O
? N CD N
S * O O
< O
N fv
\ L n gy 0 W 0 rt
o = p O W N (
p
to N 0 ? N to O
ao cn 0 Q N D
S N O

A
U.)
r4
C-
fD
CL O
N
A

rD F?
61
W
uj
D
o c C O O N (A A O N lO p
3 N

t-?
rD
S O N
?-
m
P
D
61 ?' p NA P O P A ?+

<
m
o

N

_ <
=
N O W
N
w
rn
N O
CD N
?I N
A rt

_
UQ
~
0 W

w
S LM O
? O
IV
N

Ln

A C
rt
o < w rn N A m
= F- co Ln V W 'A

O
Oo
O Ll
S V 0
O
<
(D O W
6)

D C
CY)
o 0 -<
= \
O A
Ql A J - . . N
C0
v
l0
Ql
F.a

1
d0
CO W
N Ol Ln

z rp 0 w
rn
D
~
O 'p
.A
v
N
F-? . .
I--?
I-? . . . N
U'( N
lJ7 N
N N
l0
I-?

O
0 O O
A

O o rn w D
+
F

f
a

E* A
o N
?+ N
? . Ln
I
L.0 W

4- N

fV N

O rt

N
M O m v

-St ?"fr
D.1
? S
O m
?.i
N 3
3 O.
Q. ?
co
a v
m II.
M :3
'C D
m
m -?
3 m
m ?*
r+ C.
M
? N
m
O.
C
M m
W '-r
? O
N
t0 v
r+
X
SOUNDSME
P.ARK
Ar"
on
NOV 21 4 ZCQ
IMPROVING YOUR

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CONCURRENCE POINT 2
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
Table of Contents
Page
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................. ...................................1
1.1 Concurrence Point 2 Meeting Purpose ...................................... ...................................1
1.2 Project Description .................................................................... ...................................1
1.3 Merger Process History (Concurrence Point 1) ......................... ...................................1
1.4 Public Involvement Leading-Up to Concurrence Point 2 ............ ...................................2
2.0 Existing Environmental Conditions ........................................... ...................................3
2.1 Historic Properties ..................................................................... ...................................3
2.2 Natural Resources & Environmental Features ........................... ...................................3
2.3 Land Use ................................................................................... ...................................3
3.0 Concurrence Point 2 Study Alternatives ................................... ...................................4
3.1 No-Build Alternative ................................................................... ...................................4
3.2 Non-Traditional Alternatives ...................................................... ...................................4
3.3 Build Alternatives ....................................................................... ...................................4
4.0 Alternatives Screening ............................................................... ...................................8
4.1 Project Schedule ....................................................................... .................................12
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B-4929
DECEMBER 2010
CONCURRENCE POINT 2
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
List of Appendices
Appendix A - Figures
Figure 1: Aerial Vicinity
Figure 2: Environmental Features
Figure 3: Corridor Alternatives
Figure 4: Corridor Alternatives Groups
Appendix B - Tables
Table 1: Functional Design Alternatives Evaluation Matrix
Appendix C - CIW #2 Newsletter and Summary of Citizens' Comments
Appendix D - Project Photographs
Appendix E - NCDOT's Repair/Rehabilitation Evaluation for Bridge #16, Pender County
Appendix F - Proposed Design Criteria and Typical Sections
Appendix G - NEPA/404 Merger Team CP 2 Meeting Agreement
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. B4929
DECEMBER 2010
CONCURRENCE POINT 2
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Concurrence Point 2 Meeting Purpose
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is requesting concurrence on
Detailed Study Alternatives (DSA) to be carried forward (alternatives which satisfy the purpose
and need for the project) for Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) project B-4929. These
alternatives will be studied and evaluated in sufficient detail to ensure a good transportation and
permit decision-making process. This report will provide a brief presentation of the No-Build
Alternative, the non-traditional transportation alternatives, and the functional design alternatives
studied. This report will be utilized by the NEPA/404 Merger Team for discussions during the
formal Concurrence Point 2 (CP 2) meeting - Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward.
1.2 Project Description
NCDOT proposes to replace the existing Topsail Island Bridge (NCDOT Bridge No. 16) along
NC 50/210 over the Intracoastal Waterway in Pender County, NC (Figure 1 - all figures are
included in Appendix A). The NCDOT has initiated studies for this replacement project in
accordance with the requirements set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, as amended.
The 2009 bridge inspection report indicates that the bridge is in poor conditions with a
sufficiency rating of two out of one hundred with restricted loads of 14 tons for single vehicles
and 18 tons for truck tractor with semi-trailer.
Replacement of Bridge No. 16 over the Intracoastal Waterway entails removal and replacement
of an existing swing span bridge currently providing access to Topsail Island. This bridge is one
of only two access points onto Topsail Island, the other bridge being located approximately
seven miles north in the Town of North Topsail Beach.
1.3 Merger Process History (Concurrence Point 1)
On August 20, 2009, the NEPA/404 Merger Team met to discuss concurrence on Purpose and
Need and Study Area Defined for the reference project - Concurrence Point 1 (CP 1). During
the meeting, existing conditions, the project study area, the project's need, and the project's
purpose were presented. Subsequent to the presentation and discussions the NEPA/404
Merger Team reached a consensus and signed the formal Concurrence Point 1 Agreement -
Purpose & Need and Study Area Defined. Under this agreement, the purpose and need of the
project was defined as follows:
Purpose of Proposed Action
• Improve bridge safety and functionality
Need for Proposed Action
• Structurally deficient, functionally obsolete bridge
Study Area
• See Figure 2
1
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B-4929
DECEMBER2010
CONCURRENCE POINT 2
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
1.4 Public Involvement Leading-Up to Concurrence Point 2
The first public outreach step was conducted on June 20 and 25th, 2009 with a series of Local
Officials Meetings and the first Citizens Informational Workshop (CIW #1), respectively. Over
350 citizens were in attendance. Interactions included a voice-over Power Point presentation,
answers to questions, documentation of comments, issues, and concerns, citizens drawing their
alignment ideas onto aerial mapping and interviews with local newspapers and television
stations. At this meeting, no study alternatives were shown.
A similar outreach approach and format was chosen for CIW #2, conducted on October 21,
2010. A Local Officials Meeting was held from 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM and the CIW #2 from
3:00 PM to 7:00 PM. Forms of communication announcing CIW #2 included the project
website, a newsletter that was mailed to over 9,300 addresses and media announcements.
The CIW #2 was held in the Surf City Community Center near the project site. Citizens were
directed to a voice-over PowerPoint presentation that repeated every ten minutes. The
PowerPoint station was followed by a series of maps displayed on tables showing functional
design alternatives with corresponding artistic renderings for each of the alternatives. For
easier comparison, the study alternatives were divided into three groups: northern, central and
southern.
Over 300 citizens were in attendance at CIW #2, from which over 200 questionnaire/ comment
cards were collected. Other comments were received via phone calls, email, or regular mail
prior to and subsequent to the meeting. A summary of this tally and a copy of the newsletter
announcing CIW #2 are included in Appendix C of this document.
For the citizens who were unable to attend, media coverage was provided. The Topsail Voice,
StarNews in Wilmington, Jacksonville Daily, and Cape Fear News all covered the meeting along
with News 14 Carolina, WECT, and WITN television. Team members provided interviews
accordingly. A listing of publication dates and copies of the announcements, articles, and video
clips are on file in the office of RS&H.
2
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B-4929
DECEMBER 2010
CONCURRENCE POINT 2
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
2.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
2.1 Historic Properties
The available state records indicate that the Topsail Island Bridge, also known as the Sears
Landing Bridge, was originally located at Sunset Beach in the 1930s and was relocated to its
current location following Hurricane Hazel in 1954. This bridge was originally determined
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places in the 1995 NCDOT Historic Bridge
Survey.
A historical survey for the Wards Reality Corporation property was conducted by NCDOT. This
property is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Topsail Drive and Kinston
Avenue in Surf City - approximately 2,000 feet from the existing swing span bridge. NCDOT
determined that this property is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
In October 2010, NCDOT submitted the results of the Topsail Island Bridge and Ward Property
studies to the North Carolina Department of Historic Resources (NCDHR) as part of the Historic
Architectural Resources Survey Report. NCDHR's concurrence with this report is pending.
2.2 Natural Resources & Environmental Features
A Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) was prepared by NCDOT in September 2010.
The following is a summary of the findings of this report:
Two ponds with an area of 2.70 acres, along with Topsail Sound and one unnamed tributary to
Topsail Sound were identified in the study area as shown in Figure 2. All waters were classified
as High Quality Waters (HOW). No water supplies or outstanding waters were identified within
a one mile radius of the study area. Impact avoidance measures and compensatory mitigation
will be required for water resource potential impacts. No river basin buffers were identified in
the study area.
Twelve federally protected species were identified for Pender County. The biological conclusion
for eleven out of these twelve species were categorized as not required, no effect, may affect -
not likely to adversely affect. One species remains unresolved - the red-cockaded woodpecker.
The National Marine Fisheries Service has identified Topsail Sound as an Essential Fish
Habitat, but the proposed project is likely to result in negligible net effect to this habitat.
2.3 Land Use
Current land uses within the area consist primarily of residential development. Businesses on
the island are small and cater to vacation and recreational related activities. Businesses within
the Town of Surf City extend onto the mainland and are broader based. Future land use
patterns are expected to be similar as the area experiences further growth.
3
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. B-4929
DECEMBER2010
CONCURRENCE POINT 2
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
3.0 CONCURRENCE POINT 2 STUDY ALTERNATIVES
3.1 No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, the existing swing bridge would remain in-place. It is expected
that within a few years the movable sections of the bridge will be in disrepair resulting in closure
of the crossing location. Traffic currently crossing at this bridge would be rerouted to the North
Topsail Bridge approximately seven miles north. This alternative would result in no new
construction costs; no impacts to streams, wetlands or other natural or cultural resources; and
no residential or business relocations. However, this alternative would result in increased
maintenance cost for a period of a few years prior to complete bridge closure. The eventual
closure would result in delays in emergency services, significant delays in travel to and from the
island, and detrimental impacts to the local economy. The No Build Alternative would not
meet the purpose of the proposed project - improve bridge safety and functionality. The
No Build Alternative provides a basis for comparing the adverse impacts and benefits of the
study alternatives.
3.2 Non-Traditional Alternatives
Improve Existing Facility and Rehabilitation of Existing Bridge - The possibility exists that the
swing bridge span and supports could be rehabilitated to extend the life of the existing bridge;
however, rehabilitation would require a temporary detour to be constructed while the bridge is
rehabilitated. The rehabilitation and temporary detour would result in significant costs and
significant impacts to the adjacent properties. These costs and impacts would be incurred
without meeting the purpose to improve the safety or functionality of the existing bridge
crossing. NCDOT has prepared a summary of rehabilitation requirements and associated
costs dated November 1, 2010 and is included in Appendix E.
Alternative Modes of Travel - Any transit type service between the mainland and the island
would require a bridge replacement leading to the same purpose and need for the project as
stated above. A ferry system in lieu of a bridge crossing would be impractical given the amount
of traffic volumes crossing the bridge. A ferry system would not meet the purpose of the
project to improve the bridge functionality.
Traffic Management - No traffic management alternatives options exist that would reduce the
volume of traffic to a level where a bridge crossing is not required.
3.3 Build Alternatives
Design Criteria - The build alternatives were developed using AASHTO and NCDOT guidelines
for a major collector facility using a 40 mph design speed. Two 12' lanes, one in each direction,
will be provided with four foot bike lanes. Five foot sidewalks with 2-6" curb and gutter will also
be provided on each side on the proposed bridge only. Three levels of bridge replacements
were considered including a high-level fixed, a mid-level moveable, and a low-level moveable
with waterway clearances of 65', 30', and 15' respectively. See Appendix F for the design
criteria and associated typical sections.
4
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. 8-4929
DECEMBER 2010
CONCURRENCE POINT 2
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
Alternative Corridor Layouts - Eighteen alternative corridor layouts were developed for the
bridge replacement and are shown in Figure 3.
Initial Screening (Alternatives Eliminated) - After initial screening, Alternatives 1, 8, 9, and 12
were eliminated by the Project Team. Descriptions of these alternatives and reasons for early
elimination are included below:
• Alternative 1 is a proposed high-level fixed span bridge located approximately
2,300 feet north of the existing bridge location. The geometry consists of a
sweeping curved alignment with an island tie-in that is parallel to NC 210.
Alternative 1 was eliminated due to the high right-of-way impacts, longer bridge
length with higher costs, and significant impacts to travel pattern changes to and
from North Topsail Beach.
• Alternative 8 is a proposed high-level fixed span bridge located in the existing
bridge location. Alternative 8 was eliminated due to the required high vertical
clearance resulting in significant property impacts; the requirement for an off-site-
detour during construction adding costs and impacts to the project; and the
resulting detrimental changes in travel patterns and access to local businesses.
• Alternative 9 is a mid-level moveable bridge located approximately 200 feet
south of the existing bridge location. Alternative 9 was eliminated due to the
permanent section 4f impacts associated with the Soundside Park.
• Alternative 12 is a proposed high-level fixed span bridge located approximately
2,000 feet south of the existing bridge location. Alternative 12 was eliminated due
to the similarity to Alternative 14, but with higher right-of-way impacts.
Alternatives Presented at CIW #2 - In an effort to more effectively communicate the remaining
fourteen design layouts, the alternatives were placed into three groupings described below and
shown in Figure 4. Two of these alternatives (Alternatives 5 and 10) have matching horizontal
alignments; however, two waterway clearance options (high-level fixed and mid-level moveable)
have been studied.
Northern Alternatives Group - Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 are included in the northern
alternatives group (Figure 4). All alternatives in this grouping replace the existing bridge
with a high-level fixed bridge.
• Alternative 2 is located approximately 2,000 feet north of the existing bridge
location beginning on the mainland side just west of J. H. Batts intersection and
ending on the island side at New Bern Avenue; a new island tie-in location 2,100
feet north of Roland Avenue.
• Alternative 3 is located approximately 1,700 feet north of the existing bridge
location with a sweeping curved alignment beginning on the mainland side just
west of J. H. Batts Road and ending on the island side at Roland Avenue.
• Alternative 4 is located approximately 1,100 feet north of the existing bridge
location beginning on the mainland side just east of Sea Oaks Drive and ending
5
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. 8-4929
DECEMBER 2010
CONCURRENCE POINT 2
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
on the island side at Goldsboro Avenue; a new island tie-in location 850 feet north
of Roland Avenue.
• Alternative 5 is located approximately 500 feet north of the existing bridge
location beginning on the mainland side just east of Sea Oaks Drive and ending
on the island side at Roland Avenue.
Central Alternatives Group - Alternatives 5A, 6, 7, and 10A are included in the central
alternatives group (Figure 4). All alternatives in this grouping replace the existing bridge
with a movable bridge. Alternative 6 is a low-level moveable bridge alternative with a
waterway clearance of 15'. Alternatives 5A, 7, and 10A are mid-level moveable bridge
alternatives with a waterway clearance of 30'.
• Alternative 5A is located approximately 500 feet north of the existing bridge
location beginning on the mainland side just east of Sea Oaks Drive and ending
on the island side at Roland Avenue.
• Alternative 6 is the closest alternative to the existing conditions and is located in
the existing bridge location with approximately the same existing bridge level (low-
level, 15 foot waterway clearance); therefore an adjacent temporary detour bridge
would be required during construction.
• Alternative 7 is also located in the existing bridge location, but at a higher
elevation (mid-level, 30 foot waterway clearance); therefore an adjacent
temporary detour bridge would be required during construction.
• Alternative 10A is located approximately 400 feet south of the existing bridge
location beginning on the mainland side just west of Atkinson Point Road and
ending on the island side at Shore Drive; a new island tie-in location 500 feet
south of Roland Avenue.
Southern Alternatives Group - Alternatives 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are included in the
southern alternatives group (Figure 4). All alternatives in this grouping replace the existing
bridge with a high-level fixed bridge.
• Alternative 10 is located approximately 400 feet south of the existing bridge
location beginning on the mainland side just west of Atkinson Point Road and
ending on the island side at Shore Drive; a new island tie-in location 500 feet
south of Roland Avenue.
• Alternative 11 is located approximately 1,200 feet south of the existing bridge
location beginning on the mainland side just east of Sea Oaks Drive and ending
on the island side between Raleigh Avenue and Durham Avenue; a new island
tie-in location 1,500 feet south of Roland Avenue.
• Alternative 13 is located approximately 1,800 feet south of the existing bridge
location with a sweeping curved alignment beginning on the mainland side just
east of Sea Oaks Drive and ending on the island side at Roland Avenue.
6
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. B-4929
DECEMBER 2010
CONCURRENCE POINT 2
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
• Alternative 14 is located approximately 2,100 feet south of the existing bridge
location with a sweeping curved alignment beginning on the mainland side just
east of Sea Oaks Drive and ending on the island side at Charlotte Avenue; a new
island tie-in location 2,200 feet south of Roland Avenue.
• Alternative 15 is located approximately 2,100 feet south of the existing bridge
location with a sweeping curved alignment beginning on the mainland side just
west of J. H. Batts Road and ending on the island side at Charlotte Avenue; a new
island tie-in location 2,200 feet south of Roland Avenue.
• Alternative 16 is located approximately 2,400 feet south of the existing bridge
location with a sweeping curved alignment beginning on the mainland side just
west of J. H. Batts Road and ending on the island side at Roland Avenue.
7
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. B4929
DECEMBER 2010
CONCURRENCE POINT 2
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
4.0 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING
Methodology - The purpose of grouping the fourteen alternatives into a northern, central
and southern grouping was to assist in presenting the numerous alternatives to the
citizens and other project stakeholders. As the alternatives were presented, the Project
Team requested citizens and stakeholders to express their alternative preference in each
of the groupings. The Project Team's expectation was that one or two alternatives from
each grouping would present themselves for further study moving forward as the impacts,
costs, and citizen preferences were evaluated.
Citizen Feedback - As previously mentioned, over 200 CIW #2 questionnaire responses
were received. These responses have been summarized and are included in Appendix G.
These results indicate that Alternatives 5, 7, and 10 were the preferred alternatives for the
northern, central, and southern groupings, respectively. Alternatives 14, 15, and 16 were
the least preferred overall with 6% or fewer in favor of these alternatives.
Two other alternatives evolved during and immediately subsequent to the CIW #2
outreach. These alternatives are Alternative 513 and 17 as shown in Figure 2. These
alternatives have been developed to a similar level of study as the alternatives presented
at CIW #2 and are described below.
• Alternative 5R is located approximately 500 feet north of the existing bridge
location beginning on the mainland side just east of Sea Oaks Drive and ending on
the island side at Roland Avenue. This alternative is similar to the proposed
Alternative 5 high-level bridge; however, a slight alignment modification will avoid
the navigable water channel leading to the marina at the island terminus.
• Alternative 17 is located approximately 1,100 feet south of the existing bridge
location beginning on the mainland side just west of Atkinson Point Road and
ending on the island side at Shore Drive; a new island tie-in location 300 feet south
of Roland Avenue. This alternative has design elements similar to several of the
other southern alternatives, but unlike Alternative 10, does not bisect Soundside
Park. Instead, Alternative 17 skirts the park's southern boundary.
Alternatives Impacts and Costs - A preliminary impact and qualitative cost analysis has
been prepared for the sixteen alternatives and has been categorized into the northern,
central, and southern groupings included in Table 1 (included in Appendix B). Items
shown in red indicate the highest impact or cost alternative in the grouping; whereas items
shown in green indicate the lowest impact or cost alternative in the grouping.
Recommended Design Study Alternatives - Based on the alternatives impacts/costs
analysis, and feedback from the citizens, Alternatives 4, 5, 5R, 6, 7, 11 and 17 have
manageable impacts/costs and are supported to some significant level by project
stakeholders.
NCDOT is requesting concurrence from the NEPA/404 Merger Team to carry forward
Alternatives 4, 5, 5R, 6, 7, 11, and 17. A listing of each of the study alternatives and
reasons for eliminating or carrying forward are provided below.
8
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. B-4929
DECEMBER2010
CONCURRENCE POINT 2
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
Northern Alternatives Group (High-Level Fixed Bridge Alternatives)
• Alternative 2 - Reasons to Eliminate:
o Moderate support - 15% of respondents chose this as the preferred northern
alternative
o Similar to Alternative 4, but with more bridge length and project costs
o Further from the existing alignment and CBD than Alternative 4
• Alternative 3 - Reasons to Eliminate:
o Moderate support - 15% of respondents chose this as the preferred northern
alternative
o Sweeping curved alignment requires a fully superelevated section on the
bridge leading to constructability and drainage concerns
o More bridge length and project costs than other northern Alternatives 4 and 5
Alternative 4 - Reasons to Carry Forward:
o Moderate support - 18% of respondents chose this as the preferred northern
alternative
o Lowest expected cost and shortest bridge alternative for the northern group
o If Alternative 2 is eliminated, then Alternative 4 is the only remaining off-
alignment northern alternative
Alternative 5 - Reasons to Carry Forward:
o Significant support - 41% of respondents chose this as the preferred northern
alternative
o One of the lowest cost and shortest bridge length alternatives
o Closest northern alternative to the existing bridge site
• Alternative 5R - Reasons to Carry Forward:
o A slight modification to Alternative 5, maintaining navigable water channel
access leading to the island side marina - only private marina on the island
o Significant support - 41% of respondents chose Alternative 5 as the preferred
northern alignment
o One of the lowest cost and.shortest bridge length alternatives
o Closest northern alternative to the existing bridge site
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
9
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B-4929
DECEMBER 2010
CONCURRENCE POINT 2
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
Central Alternatives Group (Moveable Bridge Alternatives)
• Alternative 5A - Reasons to Eliminate:
o Moderate support - 12% of respondents chose this as the preferred central
alternative
o Significant support for the high-fixed bridge alternative (Alternative 5) in this
location
Alternative 6 - Reasons to Carry Forward:
o Moderate support - 13% of respondents chose this as the preferred central
alternative
o Most similar alternative to the existing conditions with a similar horizontal and
vertical alignment
o Least overall project impacts and costs
Alternative 7 - Reasons to Carry Forward:
o Significant support - 45% of respondents chose this as the preferred central
alternative
o Similar to existing conditions with the vertical alignment raised by
approximately 15'
o Two out of every three bridge openings will be eliminated with a mid-level
moveable bridge
• Alternative 10A -Reasons to Eliminate:
o Moderate support - 17% of respondents chose this as the preferred central
alternative
o Alternative 10A bisects Soundside Park. Although the park will be spanned by
the bridge, FHWA will not consider this a De Minimus Impact
10
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. 8-4929
DECEMBER 2010
CONCURRENCE POINT 2
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
Southern Alternatives Group (High-Level Fixed Bridge Alternatives)
• Alternative 10- Reasons to Eliminate:
o Significant support - 43% of respondents chose this as the preferred southern
alternative; however, Alternative 10 bisects Soundside Park. Although the
park will be spanned by the bridge, FHWA will not consider this a De Minimus
Impact
Alternative 11 - Reasons to Carry Forward:
o Moderate support - 16% of respondents chose this as the preferred southern
alternative
o Second lowest expected cost and second shortest bridge alternative for the
southern grouping
o Fewest property impacts for the southern grouping
• Alternative 13 - Reasons to Eliminate:
o Moderate support - 14% of respondents chose this as the preferred southern
alternative
o Sweeping curved alignment requires a fully superelevated section on the
bridge leading to constructability and drainage concerns
o High project costs and bridge length
• Alternative 14 - Reasons to Eliminate:
o Very low support - 3% of respondents chose this as the preferred southern
alternative
o High project costs and bridge length
• Alternative 15 -Reasons to Eliminate:
o Low support - 6% of respondents chose this as the preferred southern
alternative
o High project costs and bridge length
• Alternative 16 - Reasons to Eliminate:
o Very low support - 6% of respondents chose this as the preferred southern
alternative
o Sweeping curved alignment requires a fully superelevated section on the
bridge leading to constructability and drainage concerns
o High project costs and bridge length
Alternative 17 - Reasons to Carry Forward:
o Capitalizes on many of the design features preferred by the citizens and
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
11
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B-4929
DECEMBER 2010
CONCURRENCE POINT 2
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
FHWA as follows:
Closer to existing location than other southern alternatives
Does not bisect Soundside Park. Offers only De Minimus impacts
Incorporates a round-about intersection at the island terminus allowing
improved traffic flow operations from all approaches
Provides a shorter bridge and re-alignment length
o Round-about is consistent with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP)
4.1 Project Schedule
The proposed project schedule is as follows:
• Citizens Informational Workshop #2 - October 21, 2010
• Environmental Assessment - Fall, 2011
• Corridor Public Hearing - Fall 2011
• Selection of LEDPA (CP 3)- Spring, 2012
• FONSI - Fall, 2012
• Right-of-Way - 2014
• Construction - 2016
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
12
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B-4929
DECEMBER 2010
n
s; ,? 0 lootto
?1 t_ ? aw U $
4. N
Q ?f gWms
S cc
I ? r N G d 9
it ' Li. 1 J LU -
U S
S j W Q V
y Q_. od
a m
n;
IAL
W, 3W-
mot. ?, ? ? .y ? `L' W N - - y7 ? ? ° i ? •?'"• ? ?J
i r
i r .i.,
01
«
c ! „_
03
41

J
IID
z
i
m
vil
W r+
0
d

?? dl
A.0
C
?T
'Allit

A kA y?n•` p Y!

I.
_

?V

.
Y..
?
' .d1M?r?E . r??'yN4v ?-
M
bp
,
1f

n .

ft' r
M1!? U• 1171
"
it
J
Q }
? Q
Q
W
Q Q
z

4 11 r
:w
_UMW
a
W
CD
?Q
?o
O ?
C) U-
r
?n
z O
" o
wn?

0
N o
N
W a'

a

U
o

LL m`
?< - W ~ 2
U
C?
x\ a ? .7 T
?O
a 0
CO m N N
0 a v
Z °
f z
W g a

?. Z
W a v
Z
0
a

g s
cn
a a

Z
W
II
h
C
m
N
O
C
C ? C
c9 ?
m ? ? g Q
E co 0 ,
U
CL c a co
a z in
T in ?2
V
C
J -

Topsail Island
Bridge Replacement Project
Replacement of NC 501210 Bridge (No 16)
Over Intracoastal Waterway
•L
? Q1
N
cri
O '
? co
ca +,
f0 .?
> O
W d
++ 4J
co ?
L V
a ?
C ?
ao °G
N v
0
o
m
(0
C m
O C
U H
C
LL c9
Q
O
f0
H

° E E
^ Ln
N N L
0 O
.
Q M r, O t` C C
0
° rn m E
" N o
N o
?
0 _
g c o
, N
Q l0 '-
O
N o°o E
Ln Ln m c
ri rn LD
Q a Lfl I N
0
CD
L
(7
N
?

c
ti
r»
r- Ln
rn 00
l-
00 C
o\°
GJ M i m
s Q Ul)

0
N
E
M Ln Ln
0
m O

Q
Ln
N Cca

O G
.r
O O
k-D ^

pi

L

7

0

a-i
V
rl m
.
.
.
.
.
.
c-I
t7
'
N
O
!?P
:6
LD
0

ui E E

01
N o
O ?r
M

N

.-i

p
O

O

-

o
m
Q M V N

O
CL)

Q
N
lD N
rn ni rn 0 - O =
0 a M - LL
00

c4 O
O O ry)
N
-1 O
C N 00
00 M _

O Q O O 00 41 ? > 2
0 - Ln M Lrn 4J
l7 ?-{ r-i O >
co

L
O
+'
C 0 0 ro 0
m

O

E

aO
rn ` o O \ M ao a ° r-I Ln
-

N ro
G (U
u 1
4
V
O
O L r
N O 00 p
p
111 -1 Cr' 00 O = = N
LO O , , , . i--i r14 N ?••,?, N

m > >

O

u
m
z E
Ln O d'
r14 I r-4
°
G
D G
R
4? .
`? f n r.j N t_uD 0 O
Q I
`
- \ S Q) cf
O O
Q N
3

L
° E

l7
m 00
1D
°

C
it ,4 t.0 C)i
c)
I
N
i--i
m
r- .-i i
a
-0
00
L Q M \ \ S dJ
W M o
L

O t
z m O O
d Ln J
c
f+ Ll1 00 O
lf1 O lD N N .
?--i e--i N -C Ln
Q n Lr Z!, c ?-1
L N O Q) C

00
d: A
N Ln k. ?
? 00 lD CD ff" 2
.
0
at
Q
.-1
Lr?
r,
00 r! ri n N
'OQ
'
\
al
a--I
Ln !fi1
6 r-I C
C
Q1
.C
? Q.
C -?
a O
E

> L
at
N
C
O
Qj
cu
O
a

CL
v !
E E c

L rn
a,
V
c
-
a
ru

c >
L..
(O
m

L

N

??

>
3 a
, M M 0 o _0
L

O m
UJ aj
L v E v a)
i N
'p OJ
-
V In m C

CA
0

7,

ro \

t

r0

O

A

U

-

n

n

r `
w

4 m

>
-0

N j "O j 'o

C r9
CL
(V V

m (U

N

n

't
4.
V u O X O C O o E 0 a a u
r0 0
E v E 0

O
_
N
O
LA
o M
.
a)
?n
E
O
Ln

0A

4-

U
v
V
?t
u

d 0 C:

O co Q)
C
O
_

V

N
C C .fl v
• G fl a1 CL
E C .? O O v - Ln
*-'
D `! £ E
E
-
D r0 • L C Y ca

C a
X --
t _
4.,
C
N
L u
O ,.
m v
•> O
C ._ r
= p c
N
V
v j _ ' U aJ Q! E y f0 V
C

O ? OO

C

L y
Y O

C L C

t0 (p C C

a

c

Qj

_

c _

L L _ N N

°°

c

a
O
9
Ql
c
v
m
(U
_
Fu
•
a
i
LL
•U " L C D &- LL
=
C
0
>'
?
fl-
N
C -
06

N
w +
t - w
- ?
in
cu 0A
C Q O .T+ L.L -2 C Q

O
J 0O
c
v
+
co
m
W
C
=
C
D
>- CL
`
.a L
V i
O
3 C
O
o 4J
+•
U +.+ N J N L L C O at C L = co L fp C
E C d
\ V D_
N u
N 6?
M 4J
OA O O f0 E C
u O
' V -
- aJ L tp
? -
rD ro
a u
ti O 0 r a+ L
C 79 O 7
1 O ?
,
(A O
`
to U
a' _ st o O Qf _ _ Q
- 2 v v
) v F
- G Z 3:
n
Y
V
=
O
a
1
vi
u
O
uU
O
C
l0
U
fp Q"
d N
? C
h G
C
C Y
Y 0 U
L In f0
a o a
N ? O
a
'O C
? L
O Q1_
N ? V
o c
> Q) o
O L
DO at N
C O
C O
m a) a
Q CL
O
>• U OJ
+N+ >
a) U
Ln a Ln
E >
? ? ro
u E C
m N
CL E E _E m
L
c c C
C C
w cu Ln
CL Q
QJ Q) Of

N
O
Q.
O
c
v
r`o
N
Q1
O
w
N
m
O_
E
OJ
4J
L
QJ
O
v
v
L
H
0
D
E
z
v
c

ro,
0
y
v
Q
C
C
co
m
CD
Z
cD
U
0
(D
n
. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 • • • • • • • O_ C) • • • 04 QJ
C
O? CD - n D CT O a) v) j 2 3 O -? O -? D
77 C? ,
C
D CD C O CD r+ C' CD O CD O
c A
O
+ a)
o
r.
O
O r
(n (!)
CD
C7
a)
Z O
p O C O r• C O c a -n (
D O
10 N C-. CD a) •J in !)
( (n N 0 0 C
: 3 O O X Z p (!)
o Q Q r o c CD m < O < < r+ Uu r « CD
1
07

o

3.
W
<
.+
O
CD
<
'
CD
CD
CD
.
?
CD
O
CD cD a 0) < CD CD O CD _ fD
O (n 0 :3 N CD n - O ? CD z3 _ 5 C CD o cn
CD =3 p < (D
x
? y
x
D
o
Q

Qq

D

p

+

Cv

Q

r«

D

CD

07

+

CD

.

Z
CD (n CD 0 v CD 0 _0 D ? r' _
CD O O
v 0 :E (n A CD O . m C C CD D
< N N O C
D 07 CD CD + N x O :3 x 0? 0) CD Q
?. CD r, o N :D J (n `C 4 3 3 CD
C M w CD fD -, Q C CD
C CY U) CD Q o + p , w 7 ? a
M <
(P CD n O M A 7 CD 0 < O ' . O p
v V) . O C
D -i U) C
D C2 CD M r+ C U) p D x

:7 CD CD C O a) + r-+ Lo C1 UQ (n C3' U) C' 3 a M r
. _
m CD 3 O rt -` ((DD 0 N O r
zy ::E n Q M
M
CD
O
CD
a
CD
(D
3
.
Q O .
r ?< Q - CD Q U) CD
O
o
?
' O N o O A g y - v
rn 5 3 m ;7
0
v
J
C
C
D
CD
:3
.,
CL CD (n (D
O 0-
Dt? U) C O O
p (DD o < CD ? - zr n :D " cn
O CD (D Q) 0 C 0

O
' C Q O
D O CD A7 D 0) C-) CL 3 CL 0 CD
( C (n

-

D
r
CD

CD
CD
p
0
D =r

cn

-0
-n v
0

CD

o

r+
0

?

(n

co

<

O

m
= C: CD
< O C O p m c O
O -0 O
T
CD 21
N CD -
T D O (D M 3 ? O CD ? r.• m

CD C CL J O (D
m :3 CD

D p
C a) O v CD CL p O*Q CL _' " a) Z3
(n
CD ? r+ CD (D CD M A N C1
CD ( N C
D T p N < , C
D
O
m =T
m U) `
N
CD 0
CD `
N CD r r
=T <
CD
CD

O
D =
O
CD
O
Q _
0
O
?
J
3
cD CD
N
O
? =
< (D

cn O
0? Q c
<
(lR
n
C
O
<
CD Q
r+ O O O ? n x _
O 0
O 0 CD U) (
J1 p
j .

CD
CD
V)
C7
O -i
-0
O (D
a)
=T
CD
r . 07
O
-"

CL =5 1+
(n
CD
U)
CD Z5
r+
r+ O
:3 C
CD
CD
CD
C-
CD M +
CD CD
CD
CD CD
C1
C
O
O C 3 ) CD (n a fD 0- ::E Cr M 0. CD
0 p C
3 u) CD Z C . x. c
D < (
D O (D
C
0 O

=r

a)

D =3

'

? « 2

0 (n (

=3

M

fD CD 0 3
r
CD
CD
-•
C 0
.

CD
C7

CD -

M
?•

CD
C2 5

O
CCD
0 70
CD
(1Ct
CD
o
C
D
cn
CD _
Uq
CD
Cn
(n
O ?_ U)
•J O
C7
=5
07
:3 O
C C
X

-• CD CD

o =

(D Q O v r r C31

O

a (Ti
,
d
`c
, a n) v c) o
? =„ _ O Q O :
a) C O
A O iv
CD 0 r ? -0 0 CD N A ? CD a C
D C)
r

0 O
- C
D C
D
CD ? :3 +
CD
C• CD C v v (D ? O O 1 r+ O CAD
(n < cD
y 7 C7 C fv C 71 CD
CD n r` CD a) O =3- O'Q Q o -, p O p Z3 O <
0 0 (D J
a) ,+ .+ ZS Q. CD O v .-'-r CS C2 Q) CD

0
0)

=r
(D

CD
CD
M C-) ZY CD NJ <
CAD -r CD Cf) Co p o D Ln CD Q O CD O U) rp« O
(n M o' o o Q M
C O ZY ED 72 O O p o
C O C CD fl) (] U)
O
Cy O
A
O
p
o C/) Q CD < O Z3 =7 D
C

n
O
<
CD
a- (D M CD
C
(D (D
Q
U) C7
CD
CD
5 CD
CL
O+
- CD
CD N
O
U
. D CD J (D _ . J o
w
Meeting Notes ASK
RS&H Architects-Engineers-Planners. Inc.
Memorandum Architectural, Engineenng, Planning and Environmental Services
Meeting Date: October 21, 2010
Subject: Citizens Informational Workshop #2,
Topsail Island Bridge Replacement Project (TIP Project No. B-4929)
Location: Surf City Community Center, Surf City
Attendance
Members of the public
302 citizens and local officials signed the meeting roster, it is estimated that a total of 350 people
attended the meeting (including NCDOT Project Team members).
NCDOT NCDOT
Charles Cox, PDEA Ed Lewis, HEU
Michele James, PDEA Eileen Fuchs, HEU
Tony Houser, Roadway Design Unit Herman Huang, HEU
Lee Moore, Roadway Design Unit Allen Pope, Division 3
John Braxton , Roadway Design Unit Jackson Provost, Division 3
Casey Harris, Roadway Design Unit Eric Ray, Right-of-Way
Kaye Baggett, Right-of-Way
Consultant Team Other Officials
Chad Critcher, RS&H Ron Lucas, FHWA
Ken Herring, RS&H
Robby Wayne, RS&H
Kimberly Boik, RS&H
Radha Krishna Swayampakala, RS&H
Drew Morrow, RS&H
Vivek Hariharan, RS&H
Edith Peters, RS&H
Jan Anderson, JKA
Karen Simon, Simon Resources
Tami Reina, Simon Resources
The Citizens Information Workshop #2 was held at the Surf City Community Center, on Thursday
October 21, 2010 from 3:00 PM to 7:OOPM. The purpose of the workshop was to provide an update of
the project and present the 14 bridge alternatives currently under review.
The participants were first shown a ten minute long video that provided an overview of the project
purpose, 14 study alternatives, and the project schedule. The 14 study alternatives were categorized
into three groups (Northern, Central, and Southern Alternatives Groups). Two sets of display boards for
each alternative group, a total of six stations, were presented in the room. At each station, the
participants had an opportunity to view large maps and 3D artistic renderings, interact with Project
Team members, ask questions, and share ideas. A right-of-way station was set up, where NCDOT right-
Page 1 of 9
of-way agents were in attendance and answered participants' questions. A station was set up for small
children accompanied by their parent. The station included coloring books and crayons.
Participants Feedback:
Each workshop participant received a handout package that included project information and a
comment form. Participants were asked to review the information provided and select a preferred
alternative from each group, along with their reasons for their preference. Participants were
encouraged to complete the comment form either at the workshop or at home. Comment forms
completed at home were to be mailed back no later than November 5, 2010. The comment form also
included several other questions to determine participants' residential/business status, as well as any
additional issues related to the replacement of the Topsail Island Bridge.
A total of 205 comment cards were received from the workshop participants (142 at the workshop and
63 via mail/fax/email after the workshop). In addition, several participants provided numerous oral
comments. A summary of participants' oral and written comments is provided below:
Oral Comments:
• One participant inquired whether this project was going through the EIS process.
• One participant questioned the need to replace the existing bridge.
• One participant mentioned that New River Drive adjacent to the marina floods during heavy
rainfall events. The existing storm drain system does not drain the roadway sufficiently.
• Several participants wondered how a temporary bridge is built, how long will the construction
take and how many lanes will be required if a movable bridge is the preferred option.
• Participants made numerous compliments on a well done presentation and appreciated the
hard work; really liked the format of workshop.
• Several participated asked whether there is funding for this project? What is the cost difference
between bridges?
• Several participants were concerned that a fixed bridge is too expensive.
• One participant commented that the Town of Surf City if only "busy" 12 weeks out of year, why
is this an issue? Movable is the option for this location.
• Several participants mentioned that the existing North Topsail Bridge (high-level bridge) is
closed when the winds blow at 45 miles per hour (mph) or higher. If the existing swing bridge in
Surf City is replaced with a high-level fixed bridge of a mid-level movable bridge, evacuation
would become problematic as both bridges will be closed at higher wind speeds.
• Several participants wanted to confirm that the view while driving/biking/walking over the high-
level bridge would be nice. They mentioned that they cannot see over the side of the bridge
from the North Topsail Bridge.
• One participant said that if going to replace it, do it right and improve traffic flow and
evacuation route by making it high level, fixed-span bridge. Do not want another bascule
bridge, takes too long for bridge to open/close and creates traffic congestion.
• Several participants liked Alternative 5, rather than 5A - prefer a fixed-span bridge
Page 2 of 9
• Several participants commented that on alternatives 5 and 5A, it would be difficult for boats to
access the marina from the main channel. The current alignment shows the bridge spanning the
channel leading to the marina.
• Several participants suggested that the Alternative 10 or l0A be realigned around the backside
of the park instead of thru the park - similar to Alternative 13 or 16?
• Several participants liked Alternative 13 and 16 but did not like the roundabout.
Written Comments:
As mentioned above, a total of 205 comment forms have been received from the citizens. These written
comments are summarized and presented in the following pages. It should be noted that for the
descriptive questions, only critical and unique comments are included in the summary. Any repeated
comments are not included in this summary.
Page 3 of 9
Comments Summa
1) Where do you live? (208 responses)
Surf City Island
Surf City Mainland
Topsail Beach
North Topsail Beach
Hampstead
Other
WHO
Your relationship with the Island: (206 responses)
Permanent Resident 51'49 72%
Seasonal Resident 145 22%
Other E121 6%
A) Do you have property that will be directly impacted by one of the alternatives? (188 responses)
a. Yes
b. No W607
68%I
32%
If so, which alternative? (188 responses)
Alt 2 20 11%
Alt 3 7%
Alt 4 10 5%
Alt 5 5%
Alt 5A 3%
Alt 6 2%
Alt 7 2%
Alt 10A 14 7%
Alt 10 19 10%
Alt 11 1.9 10%
Alt 13 14 7%
Alt 14 14 7%
Alt 15 25 i 13%
Alt 16 18 10%
What is your property's use ? (167 responses)
Residential =124 -
Business 2
Vacation S 6
Other NO=
What is
orthern
Alt 3
Alt 4
Alt 5
15%
18%
40%
11%
Page 4 of 9
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
w
=°a
Comments Summary

CentraliGr'oup (192 response`s)
Alt 5A X233 11%
Alt 6 13%
Alt 7 46%
Alt 10A 18%
None ¦23 12%
Southern Group (193 responses)
Alt 10 ¦84 44%0
Alt 11 E31 16%
Alt 13 628 _ 15%
Alt 14 IRS-! 3%
Alt 15 6%
Alt 16 IM10=1 5%
None ¦24 ' -. 12%
6) What are the reasons for choosing your preferred alternatives?
Northern Group;
Access to Town Hall/ Police/ Residential
Less disruptive - minimal impacts on businesses, property & environment
Let Town Hall see the traffic! Hwy 210 floods during every hurricane from Batts to Loggerhead Inn
all the time
Reduced maintenance, labor and no temporary bridge - reduce traffic slow downs during tourist
season. Safety - few accidents
Wind restriction on existing bridge with 45 mph winds
Better emergency/hurricane response
Consistent with current land use
Construction Costs Low
Do not want alignment to go through the center of town
Does not impact marina
Impact on view
Not good for people that walk or ride bikes

Access to Soundside park
Consistent with current land use
Higher Bridge will accommodate more boat traffic with fewer openings. Bascule bridge construction
assists in Homeland Security efforts to secure our water ways
Less disruptive - minimal impacts on businesses, property & environment
Need to have traffic pass through business district
Construction Costs Low
Do not want alignment to go through the center of town
Does not impact marina
Less delays during construction
Aesthetically pleasing
Page 5 of 9
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CIW#2
Comments Summary
Southern Group
Need to have traffic pass through business district
Concerned about impact to the boat launch area of the park
Connects with the main part of the island
Less disruptive - minimal impacts on businesses, property & environment
The South end needs an entrance onto the island
Better emergency/hurricane response
Consist with current land use.
Construction costs low
Impact on view
Less delays during construction
Prefer to impact businesses rather than residential
Reduce traffic slow-downs
Wind restriction on existing bridge with 45 mph winds
Aesthetically pleasing
7) Are there any other bridge alternatives that are not shown on the maps that you feel should be considered?
Provide four lanes - two lanes in each direction
Alt 7 needs a roundabout at Roland Avenue and Topsail Drive
ALT 7 with 36'-40' clearance
Consider a tunnel
Adjust Alt 10 or 11 to land on island somewhere between the current and proposed landings
if it would reduce overall cost
Consider alignment at the south end of Topsail Island. Less impact on local residents and land mass
All roundabouts should be a traffic signal instead
Repair and keep existing bridge
Small toll ferry in place of the old bridge (once it is removed) for small number of cars, foot & bike
traffic to maintain the ease of access to businesses
For those who object to replacing the existing swing bridge, the existing bridge could remain in an
open position allowing boat traffic to pass through while utilizing the new high-level bridge.
Swing bridge could be "blocked off' eliminating access but leaving it in place for historic value.
No. But why would another draw bridge help our island. We need to be progressive and
not take a huge step backwards. Think to the future use and please consider ALT 5 or ALT 10.
A span from the end of Watt's Landing Road, and a new 30' bascule bridge where swing bridge is now.
2 bridges to the island
I would like the bridge to extend to the S curve, south, where Shore Dr. meets Highway 50 South,
and make a new intersection there.
8) What makes this community important to you?
It is a beautiful, peaceful place to live, very relaxed and friendly attitude
It's my home and livelihood
Quaint, quiet beach town
The established feel of the community and the small town atmosphere
You can still enjoy the beach and the wildlife that lives here
Enjoy vacationing here
I enjoy everything about the area - the weather, scenery and great people
9) Based on the information available, were all substantial questions answered?? (181 responses)
Yes Iaa 1 93%
No 12_ 7%
Page 6 of 9
•
•
•
•
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
•
•
•
•
•
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CIdW 2
Coirim?ents Summary l
10) Were display maps and handouts easy to read and understand? (185 responses)
Yes 99%
No mum 1%
11) Were NCDOT representatives understandable, helpful and clear in their explanations? (172 responses)
Yes 168 `. 98%
No 4`! 2%
12) How might we better present proposed projects and address citizens' concerns in future workshops?
Worksfiop
I think you have done an excellent job to this point considering the number of alternatives involved -
keep up the good work
Information was very informative
Loved this format - personnel were very helpful in understanding terminology & maps/diagrams.
More info is always better, but I guess at this stage more info is not available. I spoke with at least
7 representatives for the project - the answers I got were consistent & informative. Very helpful
NCDOT Reps were outstanding with respect to answering questions
This one (and the last one) was great!
This worked well - enough folks to answer questions & large table maps were very helpful for seeing impact.
Very well done. Pictures were clear and well marked. All representatives were knowledgeable,
helpful & friendly.
You listen well
Your initial video presentation should be pointed out as an excellent way to orient to the
rest of the presentation.
Issues with presentation (information not consistent, audio, maps, day of workshop, etc)
You did a fantastic job. Outstanding maps. The video was well presented. Next meeting will
be easier to understand when some alternatives are eliminated.
Ideas
Reduce the number of alternatives
Provide cost information
Let us rank preference for groups: 1. Central 2. North 3. South
I hope as a result of this survey you are able to reduce the number of options and the amount of
information overall
We need more feedback on our alternatives, ie, do you have the money for all alternatives.
What is the driving factors - cost of construction, property. Deliver + and - aspects of finding
which lead to the final choice. Keep communications ongoing.
Have more workshops
Weekend presentation!
Need>Adtlitionallnfo
Need more feedback on selected alternatives
Question & Answer session
Need to know if Surf City will have to pay operational costs for a bascule bridge
Crunch some numbers and have some cost comparisons ready
Better explanation of the impact of traffic projections
Discuss property rights, property values?
Include solutions on increased traffic on side streets near bridge take off and landing.
Are movable bridges even a NCDOT possibility?
Page 7 of 9
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CIW#2
F
Comments Summary
13) Do you have any additional comments or any specific issues or ideas that you would like to share concerning
the bridge replacement?
Bridge Type
Prefer High Level Bridge
It should be a high level bridge/no movable bridge
I don't think a movable bridge would be a good idea due to the holding up traffic & maintenance costs.
A high rise bridge should solve problems for many years.
The cost of maintaining a low or mid-level bridge is a big negative. As a taxpayer of Surf City,
I do not want to sign-up for extended fees.
High rise fixed is the only way to go - mirror image to the bridge at North Topsail - less traffic stoppage
less pollution; expedites emergency vehicles.
I think a movable bridge is an obstruction to traffic flowing along Hwy 210. A movable bridge will not
alleviate the horrible traffic conditions created by the swing bridge and only expect will get worse
The current bridge prevents our departure from the island. On holidays in season it can take 45 min
to go one mile to the stop light in downtown area. The high bridge at N. Topsail Beach provides
a spectacular view.
Yes. A high percentage of Topsail Island residents are retirees. We will have an increase in health needs.
What would happen if an EMS truck would be held up with a bridge opening. It could be a
matter of life or death. Please, no draw bridge.
All moveable options should be eliminated. Too expensive to maintain and long delays at opening.
Prefer Movable Bridge
I don't want the small town feel of the community to change too much. I don't mind wait on bridge.
It gives me time to look at the water & thank God!
In this time of increased Homeland Security, the low bridges provide security of our waterway.
We need to maintain that. I am surprised that this issue is not is not prominently addressed.
Maintain the small town, island atmosphere, don't turn into Myrtle Beach or Kill Devil Hills.
In view of the current state of NC finances, keep the cost as low as possible.
Yes, I like the low level moveable bridge (Alt 6) then as you come on to the island place a
round-a-bout as shown in Alt 5 (The best Alt is no. 5)
If push comes to shove and cost is the issue, #7 would be the simplest alternative.
Although the current bridge is unsalvageable, part of the charm of island life is its unobtrusive
profile on the horizon. Island & community residents do not have issue with stopping traffic for
boats. We prefer to preserve our lifestyle as is.
Traffic and Safety
Safety first, vehicular capacity must be increased, don't terminate into a stop light - use roundabout
Where the bridge ends on the island. I believe a red light is a bad idea because it will inevitably
back traffic up in both directions
As a permanent resident I am very concerned with any roundabout. During off times we will be
fine but during the tourist season you will have drivers not knowing which exit to take. It will be a huge
safety problem because they will not know how to use the roundabout.
The bridge should be pedestrian & bike friendly
Would like to see a bridge to the southern end of the island to relieve traffic through Surf City
Alternatives 11, 14, and 15 would be extremely detrimental to the current land use patterns on the island.
Please - Absolutely! No rotaries (roundabouts). We have them in Massachusetts. They are
dangerous and our state has removed as many as possible. Only the locals know how to enter,
exit and who has right of way- too many accidents-better to use traffic lights.
I believe that a new bridge should provide equal access to Hwy 210 northbound &
Hwy 50 southbound to facilitate traffic flow, and that no consideration should be given to the
alternatives that bring all of the traffic
I want this island to remain accessible to the public who enjoy it, bring their business to it, and
shoulder some of the tax burden for it.
Need to know how each high level will be impacted b wind. Needs to be 3 lanes.
Page 8 of 9
0
0
•
0
•
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
p ,42- CIW # 2 w I ,?N
Comments Summary ?.
What Fs-he cost and-time-frame?
Need to know what NCDOT can afford?
How long is it going to take & the cost of each proposal
Build it ASAP - The sooner you build the less the cost. The island has adjusted to the fact that the
swing bridge will be replaced.
I think that DOT should not let requiring a "bridge tender" to influence their decision on a movable bridge.
Park and environmental concerns
We have a beautiful park for use by boaters, fisherman, children & families. Who would want to walk
around, picnic or bring their children to a park underneath a bridge. How long would park be closed.
What environmental habitats (wildlife) will be impacted?
This seems to be a choice between man and nature. I choose nature which means a new bridge should
be close to the existing bridge at a reasonable height with the least amount of property impact and
not near the park.
I am concerned about the stream & wetlands impacts of some of the alternatives; also the impact
on the character of Surf City. Alternative #10 would ruin Soundside Park, and we have very few
parks in the area.
The sun sets south! Worst that is a southern alternative blocks the southern view of those who live south
of the existing bridge. A "northern home's" southern view is already blocked by existing bridge.
Ideas and sentiments for existing bridge
Donation of concrete portion of swing bridge and roadway from bridge to Blackbeard's Campground
to Surf City as an addition to park.
Make keepsake (small pieces of old green bridge available with Drove Nance) for $5 $10 with
proceeds to an island 501 c(b) charity.
Utilize old roadbed on mainland side for additional boat launch.
If Roland Ave is cut short, landscape median in the area, pedestrian access should be built with project
The bridge should remain on the island by becoming a tourist attraction. Possibly it could be used as a
reef/diving destination.
Lots of people are very sentimental about the swing bridge So I think an improvement with
least change is desirable. Maybe my opinion is less important because I live in NTB and can
avoid the bridge on "turnover" day.
Sad to see swing bridge replaced, but necessa
Page 9 of 9
Meeting Notes RSW
Memorandum RS&H Architects-Engineers-Planners, Inc.
Architectural, Engineering, Planning and Environmental Services
Meeting Date: October 21, 2010
Subject: Local Officials Meeting,
Topsail Island Bridge Replacement Project (TIP Project No. B-4929)
Location: Surf City Community Center, Surf City
Attendance:
Town of Topsail Beach
Jac ReVille, Commissioner
Tim Holloman, Topsail Beach Manager
Ed Broadhurst, Commissioner
Grier Fleischauer, Commissioner Town of Surf City
Zander Guy, Mayor
Nelva Albury, Councilwoman
Patricia Arnold, Town Clerk
Michael Moore, Town Manager
Todd Rademacher, Town Planner
Town of North Topsail Beach Others:
Michael Yawn, Mayor Pro Tem Randy Cox
Deborah Lanci, Alderman Hap Alexander
Jim Witmer
Phil Bruton
NCDOT Consultant Team
Mike Alford, Board Member Chad Critcher, RS&H
Charles Cox, PDEA Ken Herring, RS&H
Michele James, PDEA Robby Wayne, RS&H
Tony Houser, Roadway Design Unit Kimberly Boik, RS&H
Lee Moore, Roadway Design Unit Radha Krishna Swayampakala, RS&H
John Braxton , Roadway Design Unit Drew Morrow, RS&H
Casey Harris, Roadway Design Unit Vivek Hariharan, RS&H
Ed Lewis, HEU Edith Peters, RS&H
Eileen Fuchs, HEU Jan Anderson, JKA
Herman Huang, HEU Karen Simon, Simon Resources
Allen Pope, Division 3 Tami Reina, Simon Resources
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) held a meeting with elected officials and
representatives from the towns of Topsail Beach, Surf City and Topsail Beach at the Surf City Community
Center, on Thursday October 21, 2010 from 1:00 PM to 2:30PM.
The purpose of this meeting was to provide an update of the project and present the 14 bridge
alternatives currently under review. Ms. Michele James opened the meeting and introduced Mr. Chad
Critcher with the consultant firm of RS&H. Mr. Critcher then explained the purpose of the meeting and
invited introductions from the attendees.
Attendees were then shown a ten minute long video that provided an overview of the project purpose,
14 study alternatives, and the project schedule. Immediately after the presentation Mr. Critcher
Page 1 of 3
requested the attendees to share their comments, questions or concerns. Following provides a
summary of the discussion:
How did the Project Team decide 30 feet vertical clearance for the mid-level movable bridge?
Chad Critcher and Radha Krishna Swayampakala answered that the vertical clearance for the
mid-level movable bridge was chosen based on the vessel height survey performed by the
Project Team. The first round of the vessel survey was performed in May, 2010 and the second
round was currently in progress. Based on the results of the first round of the vessel survey, a
30-feet vertical clearance was found to be the optimal height. A movable bridge with 30-feet
clearance would accommodate over 55% of boats without requiring the bridge to open and
would avoid approximately two thirds of bridge openings.
What is the expected construction cost of the proposed bridge replacement project? What is break-down
of the total costs associated with high-level fixed bridge versus movable bridge? What are the short-
term and long-term costs of each bridge type?
Chad Critcher responded that at this point detailed construction costs are not available. The
Project Team provided a relative comparison of the construction, operations and maintenance
costs of each study alternatives in the handout. As the project moves forward, the Project Team
will prepare a detailed construction, operations and maintenance cost estimates for each study
alternative.
Have there been any discussions on the responsibility of operational costs, if the existing bridge is
replaced with a new movable bridge?
Allen Pope responded that there has been no discussion on that subject. As the project moves
forward, more information would be available on the maintenance and operational costs of the
new bridge.
Did the Project Team consider a tunnel option?
Chad Critcher suggested that this idea be added to their comment form and the Project Team
would evaluate that option further. However he believes that a tunnel option probably would
not be cost effective for this location.
The existing North Topsail Bridge (high-level bridge) is closed when the winds blow at 45 miles per hour
(mph) or higher. If the existing swing bridge in Surf City is replaced with a high-level fixed bridge or a
mid-level movable bridge, evacuation would become problematic as both bridges will be closed at higher
wind speeds.
Chad Critcher responded that the Project Team will evaluate this issue as the project moves
forward.
Does the new bridge have sidewalks, and bike lanes?
Chad Critcher answered that all 14 study alternatives presented today assume that the new
bridge would have one travel lane, a sidewalk and a bike lane in each direction.
The Topsail Island is growing and the traffic demand will also grow significantly in the future. The
proposed bridge should have two lanes in each direction to accommodate the future traffic demand.
While approaching the island, the two lanes on the bridge would become either NC 210 only lane or NC
50 only lone.
Radha Krishna Swayampakala responded that the Project Team has reviewed the existing and
future traffic demand and growth opportunities. Based on this information, the existing island
Page 2 of 3
•
roadway capacity (including INC 50 and 210) would not be able to handle more than two lanes
on the bridge. Therefore, even if a four-lane bridge is provided, the intersections in the island
would cause significant backups and would not be able to accommodate the future traffic
demand unless the NC 50 or NC 210 are widened.
Did the Project Team take the Topsail Island Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) into
consideration?
Chad Critcher responded that the Project Team is aware of all the roadway improvements
included in the Topsail Island CTP. The Project Team included roundabouts at the Roland
Avenue/New River Drive intersection in several study alternatives.
Would a new bascule bridge open/close faster than the existing swing bridge?
Chad Critcher answered that he is not certain about the operating speed. However, he believes
that being a new bridge, it's operations would probably be faster than the existing bridge.
What is right-of-way acquisition and construction schedule?
Radha Krishna Swayampakala answered that the current NCDOT Transportation Improvement
Program shows that the right-of-way acquisition would begin in 2014?? And construction would
begin in 2016.
How long would it take to replace the existing bridge, whether a high-level fixed bridge or a movable
bridge?
Chad Critcher said that the expected construction period would be 2 to 3 years.
Followed by the question and answer session, Chad Critcher invited the meeting attendees to view the
large maps and 3D artistic renderings. Attendees were also encouraged to interact with Project Team
members, ask questions, and share additional ideas. The 14 study alternatives were categorized into
three groups (Northern, Central, and Southern Alternatives Groups). Two sets of display boards for each
alternative group, a total of six stations, were presented in the room.
Page 3 of 3