Jerod Patterson

A cheaper, less disruptive Cape Fear Memorial Bridge replacement would be welcome news. Residents deserve to know that every reasonable way to reduce the project’s cost and impact was explored. They also deserve apples-to-apples comparisons and a fair accounting of the process that brought us here.

A new report commissioned by the city of Wilmington suggests the bridge could cost less, but relies largely on concepts NCDOT already studied and ruled out.

It was reasonable for the city to ask whether better options exist. That inquiry would have done well to account for findings in the record rather than presenting options already shown to be infeasible. Wanting a different answer and finding one are different matters.

My point is not to fault the city but to keep the public record clear. These ideas have a history, and the reasons they did not advance should be part of the conversation.

Concerns about tolling and other impacts of NCDOT’s bridge alternatives are legitimate. But the city’s approach risks undermining trust in the process, the people working to advance this project and their careful deliberations along the way.

Many across the region, including local officials and NCDOT division staff, have spent years evaluating bridge options through a difficult process that places too much responsibility on local communities. Their work deserves scrutiny, as all public work does, but it’s not accurate to suggest they overlooked better options.

Consider the options from the city’s report:

• A drawbridge that pivots upward. The report suggests a bascule drawbridge, which tilts upward for vessels to pass. NCDOT dismissed that design by May 2020 because the span’s length could cause its counterweights to drop into the water. The report’s design provides at least 150 feet less horizontal clearance than the current bridge and falls far short of federal requirements.
• Two bridges instead of one. One concept would repurpose the existing bridge for westbound traffic and add another lift bridge for eastbound traffic. NCDOT considered and dismissed the parallel bridge concept in 2020 because of high maintenance demands.
• Keeping the current bridge in service. The report proposes retaining the current bridge or replacing just its lift section, but only if justified by structural and financial analysis. NCDOT evaluated continued preservation in 2021 and ruled it out due to substantial rehabilitation and maintenance needs and worsening repair-related traffic disruptions.
• Building four lanes instead of six. The report suggests a four-lane replacement. While the city disputes NCDOT’s traffic assumptions, the state’s February 2024 capacity analysis nonetheless projects major future congestion with four lanes.
• Smaller openings for vessels. Much of the potential savings depends on smaller navigational openings than federal agencies require. NCDOT pursued reduced clearances with the Coast Guard and Army Corps in 2024, but federal reviews still call for 135 feet vertically and 400 to 450 feet horizontally.

Revisiting those requirements is worthwhile only with a realistic prospect of changing them within a workable timeframe. That process typically takes years, with no guarantee of success. Current requirements support a navigation project four decades in the making and have been challenged before. Trying again with $327 million on the verge of expiring seems risky and late.

Then there is tolling. A separate city report emphasizes tolling’s unfair and harmful effects. Those widely shared concerns were understood when the region allowed NCDOT to advance the project with toll revenue as a potential funding source.

An important distinction is needed here. NCDOT’s alternatives are not toll bridges; they are bridges with a significant funding gap. Potential toll revenue filled that gap on paper, allowing the project to advance through planning stages while efforts to secure more funding continued. Advancing the project and working to eliminate tolls are compatible goals.

These dilemmas often remind me of Reinhold Niebuhr’s famous Serenity Prayer: “Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.” Leaders should exercise that wisdom now, helping the public distinguish what we can realistically change from what we should accept and focusing our efforts where they can make a difference.

Council should take the city’s bridge alternatives report as further confirmation of the choices before us and the process that produced them. Looking backward only helps us move forward if we have resolved the problems that ruled out earlier options.

The task now is to fight for the least environmentally damaging alternative, improve it for affected residents and close the funding gap. Protecting $327 million in committed funds requires affirming a preferred alternative within roughly five months to meet the federal obligation deadline. While the city has called for an extension, one cannot be assumed.

Regional leaders can best serve the public by staying committed to this process, building on the work already done and seeing it through without delay.

Jerod Patterson is president and CEO of the Business Alliance for a Sound Economy and holds a Ph.D. in government from the University of Texas at Austin.