Cape Fear Memorial Bridge Replacement
As we navigate the future of Wilmington’s infrastructure, conversations around the replacement of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge have reached a pivotal moment, and our community stands at a crossroads. We urge you to follow along with this important issue, which will have profound effects on the Wilmington National Register Historic District.
Cape Fear Memorial Bridge Replacement FAQs
Why does NCDOT claim the bridge needs to be replaced?
According to the NCDOT, the current bridge is functionally obsolete. This means that it does not have the capacity to serve the projected increase in vehicles (commuters, visitors and port traffic) over the next several years.
How much will it cost to replace the bridge?
The current estimate is between $1.1-$1.3 billion.
How will the new bridge be funded?
NCDOT has secured around one third of the $1.1 to 1.3 billion needed. It has obtained a federal grant in the amount of $242 million and a commitment of $85 million from the NC Transportation Fund. WMPO has said that all funding options are on the table to fund the $900 million shortfall, including tolls, a local sales tax increase or a regional transportation bond. The tax and bond options would be paid by Pender, Brunswick and New Hanover County residents and would require voter approval. The toll option would not be subject to voter approval.
If there is a toll, how much might it be?
The current proposal by Delivering Bridges LLC, an affiliate of United Bridge Partners, is projecting a $2.75 per crossing toll, which will be higher for multi-axel vehicles.
Who decides if there will be tolls? Are they elected officials?
Both the Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO) and the state legislature must approve the use of tolls to finance the new CFM Bridge. Most of the WMPO members are elected officials and include a commissioner from each of the three counties, two Wilmington City Council members, and the mayors of Wrightsville Beach, Kure Beach, Carolina Beach, Navassa, Belville, and Leland.
What are the replacement options?
Alternative A: 65’ vertical clearance lift bridge (135’ when lifted)
Alternative B: 135’ vertical clearance fixed bridge
Who determined that the bridge must have a 135’ vertical clearance?
The Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) has determined that it will only issue a permit for a bridge with a 135’ vertical clearance based upon studies leading to the 1996 Wilmington Harbor Act. These studies are part of a federal law that authorized the deepening and widening of the Wilmington Harbor. ACE has said it cannot issue a permit for a lower clearance without a change in this law. Federal and State elected officials have not supported a change in the law to permit a lower clearance.
Are there plans to dredge the river north of the bridge to accommodate commercial vessels?
Army Corp has not dredged to the authorized depth north of the bridge since 2006 and has no plans or budget to do so in the future. There are too few commercial vessels using this part of the waterway to justify the cost of dredging. Further, there is no turning basin north of the bridge to accommodate commercial vessels. As a result, it appears there will be no large vessel traffic north of the bridge that requires a 135 foot vertical clearance, now or in the future. Yet, Army Corps’ claims their hands are tied by 30 year old navigation studies and outdated legislation.
Would a lower bridge meet vessel needs?
Yes. The NCDOT’s Navigation Impact Report, a 2024 study of vessels passing under the bridge, determined there are no vessels requiring more than 100’ vertical clearance using the waterway. In fact, there are no commercial vessels requiring more than 65 ‘ vertical clearance using the waterway.
Where will the two proposed alternative designs land and how will they affect traffic patterns downtown?
The existing bridge lands at and is primarily accessed from S Third, a four lane State Highway (NC 17 Business). The proposed lift bridge (Alt A) can be built within the right of way of the existing bridge. It will land and be accessed at South Third, the same as the existing bridge. As a result, the lift bridge maintains current traffic patterns. By contrast, the proposed 135’ vertical clearance option (Alt B) will land between S Fourth Street and S Fifth Avenue, much deeper into the historic district, and will direct bridge traffic onto S Fifth, a two lane residential street lined with historic National Register properties. South Fifth cannot carry the volume of bridge traffic currently carried by S Third. In addition, the fixed 135 ‘ clearance alternative will eliminate the intersection of South Third and Dawson/Wooster and thus sever the Highway 17 Business/Highway 76 artery into and out of downtown.
This artery is also a hurricane evacuation route. As a result, the fixed 135’ clearance option will permanently change traffic patterns in ways that will cause ongoing delays and disruptions.
Why are the Residents of Old Wilmington and the Historic Wilmington Foundation advocating for Alternative A, the lift bridge?
The lift bridge can be built within the right of way of the existing bridge and will maintain existing traffic patterns. It will preserve the Historic District, maintain the important S Third/Dawson Wooster intersection and evacuation routes, minimize harm to businesses and neighborhoods along the Dawson Wooster corridor, and preserve 11 acres of Brunswick County wetlands. By contrast, the fixed bridge with the 135 foot clearance will land at S Fifth, deep into the Historic District. It will cause permanent traffic delays and disruptions because it will direct bridge traffic onto historic two lane residential streets and eliminate the intersection of S Third and Dawson/Wooster, two important regional transportation arteries.
This artery is also a hurricane evacuation route. As a result, the fixed 135’ clearance option will permanently change traffic patterns in ways that will cause ongoing delays and disruptions.
If I care about downtown Wilmington and the Historic District and am opposed to a 135’ fixed bridge and tolls, what can I do?
1. Sign the petition and share it with your contacts: https://c.org/6LVxzHppTM.
2. Write to your elected officials and express your concerns, your opposition to tolls and the fixed 135’ clearance bridge, and your support for the lift bridge.
3. Stay informed about developments by following HWF’s social media and website.
4. Be ready to respond to NCDOT’s public input survey, expected in late August 2026, and say YES to the fixed bridge (Alt A), NO to tolls, and NO to the fixed 135’ vertical clearance bridge (Alt B).
Context
The Cape Fear Memorial Bridge has been declared functionally obsolete by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) due to escalating repair and maintenance costs. Each option for replacement is located in the Wilmington Historic District, requiring determination and mitigation of adverse effects to historic resources under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. HWF serves as a consulting party during the ongoing Section 106 review.
The United States Coast Guard has completed an assessment of reasonable needs for maritime navigation for the proposed Cape Fear Memorial Bridge replacement, analyzing three alternatives:
- ALTERNATIVE A: Movable span with a 65’ clearance, extendable to 135’
- ALTERNATIVE B: Fixed span with a 135′ clearance
- ALTERNATIVE C: Fixed span with a 100’ clearance
Currently, the federally-maintained vertical clearance under the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge is 135’. The Coast Guard released a NAVIGATIONAL IMPACT REPORT this summer and solicited public comments to determine reasonable needs for maritime navigation. Upon reviewing these comments, the Coast Guard will render a preliminary navigational clearance determination to identify the minimal vertical clearance required for the new bridge. Ultimately, the U.S. Coast Guard will make recommendations to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which will have the final say on clearance.
Potential Impacts on the Downtown Wilmington Historic District
The construction of a 135’ fixed bridge (Alternative B) poses significant threats to historic buildings in the study area, potentially leading to demolition or exposing them to indirect adverse impacts such as new traffic patterns, compromised sight-lines that detract from the historic setting’s integrity, and increased noise. Notably, Alternative B would necessitate a longer off-ramp, with bridge traffic landing on 5th Avenue, and an overpass above South 3rd and 4th Streets.
According to maps supplied by the NC Department of Transportation, Alternatives A and C fit within the existing footprint of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, greatly reducing negative impacts on the Wilmington Historic District.
CLICK HERE to read HWF’s op-ed published in the Greater Wilmington Business Journal on July 15, 2024: THE CASE AGAINST A 135-FOOT CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL BRIDGE.
WEIGHING THE ALTERNATIVES:
- Alternative A: Although it preserves the existing footprint and protects historic neighborhoods, Alternative A is the most expensive option, costing nearly twice as much as Alternative B (approximately $450 million). Additionally, the maintenance and operational costs of a movable span are significant due to the need for unique parts and increased upkeep. Modern engineering practices favor fixed bridges for their cost-effectiveness and reliability, making Alternative A a highly impractical choice.
- Alternative B: This option poses severe risks to the Wilmington Historic District, likely leading to demolitions of historic homes and indirect adverse impacts. The required longer off-ramp would result in significant alterations to 5th Avenue and necessitate an overpass above South 3rd and 4th Streets. Despite meeting navigational requirements, the detrimental effects on the historic district make Alternative B unfavorable. Additionally, the high costs of Alternative B make the project less competitive for funding through North Carolina’s State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP).
- Alternative C: Projected to be the least costly option, Alternative C fits within the existing footprint of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, significantly reducing negative impacts on the Wilmington Historic District. The NIR confirms that this alternative (100’ vertical clearance) meets current navigational needs. Given the depth limitations of the waterway, the argument for a higher bridge clearance is moot.
Please sign our petition urging the WMPO to reject all tolling plans for the replacement of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge and to vote in favor of Design Alternative A: the lift bridge with the 65/135-foot vertical clearance.
Analysis: Navigational Impact Report
The NAVIGATIONAL IMPACT REPORT (NIR) confirms that all three alternatives fulfill the reasonable need for navigation in the Cape Fear River, including Alternative C (100’ fixed span). Summarizing the data collected, the NIR states that “vessels are not currently navigating this waterway that exceed 100-feet in height,” and that it does not expect Alternative C to adversely affect recreational operations.
However, the NIR incorrectly infers that the terminal storage site previously owned by Kinder Morgan might “accommodate a similar use” in the future, despite deed restrictions prohibiting storage terminal services, transloading services, and stevedoring services related to bulk liquid petroleum/chemicals distribution. These perpetual covenants require the site to adapt to new uses, invalidating any assumptions based on past uses for predicting future vertical clearance needs.
Furthermore, the NIR suggests that the sale of Kinder Morgan to a real estate developer is the primary reason for the current lack of commercial traffic in the waterway. A closer examination of the site’s draft restrictions—which refer to the depth of water needed to float a ship—reveals that its shallow draft made it less competitive compared to other terminals. This led Kinder Morgan to sell the property, concluding that their terminals south of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, with deeper drafts, better met their needs for accommodating larger ships. Former employees who spoke on record to the StarNews in 2009 confirmed loss of business due to the site’s restrictive draft, which is a mere 31’.
We have been led to believe that the limitation on upstream industry is the height of the bridge, when in actuality, the depth of the water is the most consequential limitation—and the depth will not increase. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers eliminated the potential for federal funding to dredge north of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge in 2006 due to an unfavorable cost/benefit ratio. Tellingly, the scope of work for the Wilmington Harbor 403 project does not extend as far north as the Memorial Bridge. Thus, deepening the draft in this federal navigation channel is no longer feasible, significantly limiting the effectiveness of the old Kinder Morgan site.
The waterway’s depth restrictions preclude the passage of larger, modern vessels requiring greater draft and vertical clearance. Consequently, upstream industry has moved on; Kinder Morgan and similar businesses are relocating and centralizing south where the water is deeper. This undermines the argument for a bridge clearance above 100’.
Policy Recommendations
Alternative C effectively balances cost, navigational needs, and the preservation of historic neighborhoods. The restrictive covenants on the old Kinder Morgan site should not influence the decision for a higher bridge clearance. The depth of the waterway north of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge precludes the passage of larger vessels, and upstream industrial activities have already adapted to this reality. Rather than imposing the substantial negative impact of Alternative B on Wilmington’s historic district, it would be prudent to consider using eminent domain to acquire the Kinder Morgan site for future development. This approach respects the historical integrity of the community and aligns with current navigational and industrial realities.
In the News:
-
WWAY, December 30, 2024: Where the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge Project stands now
-
Greater Wilmington Business Journal, July 15, 2024: OPINION: The Case Against A 135-foot Cape Fear Memorial Bridge
-
WHQR Public Media, January 31, 2024: After raucous public meeting, WMPO votes to consider a toll option to replace the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge
-
Greater Wilmington Business Journal, January 25, 2024: OPINION: We Don’t Need A 135’ Fixed Bridge
-
Port City Daily, May 13, 2023: Historic foundation proposes converting CF Memorial Bridge into pedestrian park
-
WECT, July 7, 2020: Community discusses impacts of Cape Fear Memorial Bridge replacement
-
StarNews, January 31, 2020: Could history save Cape Fear Memorial Bridge from demolition?