A new Port of Charleston shipping terminal proposed for North Charleston would overwhelm already-taxed roadways and would require new roads at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, the Army Corps of Engineers said Wednesday.

Moreover, Corps engineers said existing roads won't be able to handle rising traffic volumes in coming years even if the State Ports Authority's proposed terminal is not built.

The engineers' conclusions about traffic patterns -- one of several environmental questions raised by the project at the former Charleston Naval Base -- put new pressure on port-expansion backers to find the money to build the roads.

"If we do nothing, even if there's no new terminal, these roads will operate at or over capacity," said Alicia Gregory, a member of the Corps' four-person team that has been studying the proposal. "It puts quite a strain on things. When you look at the facts, access roads will have to be built."

Meanwhile, the Corps also scaled back its controversial list of alternative sites for a new port. While Daniel Island still is being studied as a viable location, the Corps said a facility on Drum Island and expansion of the current North Charleston Terminal no longer seem feasible alternatives to a new North Charleston facility.

The developments mark a flurry of activity in what has been a quiet few months of study by the Corps. The government body is in charge of issuing a permit for the $600 million port project, proposed by the SPA as the only means for the Port of Charleston to stay competitive.

Corps officials are expected to decide by August 2006 whether the terminal can be built or if it would be too much of a burden on the region's environment, economy and residents. Environmental studies, a crucial step in the permitting process, are expected to be complete by October.

Some city leaders and residents who've already weighed in on the controversial project said the new port terminal would overwhelm North Charleston with heavy truck traffic and noise. The Corps' findings are expected to provide added firepower for those who oppose the terminal.

"I don't know what it means for the rest of the study overall, but it certainly is nice to have our position affirmed," said Hanna Goss, a North Charleston resident who has questioned the benefit of terminal expansion in North Charleston. "Clearly, anybody who's driven (Interstate) 526 at rush hour can make that determination. If they're going to do this project, it needs to be done right so five or 10 years down the road it's not standstill traffic on the interstate and the quality of life hasn't been impacted."

The North Charleston City Council and the SPA have agreed the only way a new terminal would open is if new roads are built. Funding and construction of those roads, however, would be up to state and federal transportation agencies. Lawmakers have not begun discussion of how to raise the money needed.

Vehicles traveling to and from the proposed terminal would make an additional 11,000 trips back and forth over the city's roads each day, Gregory said. About 63 percent of that traffic would come from trucks and container-hauling trailers, according to the latest Corps studies.

The Corps based its conclusions on a traffic analysis with the state Department of Transportation, using computer models to figure out potential traffic delays, patterns and vehicle volumes. The Corps now will move on to studying proposals for new roads, despite the lack of funds.

Several access routes have been suggested by port officials and city leaders. The most frequently advocated is an overhaul of the Pittsburg Avenue area, which would provide access to Interstate 26.

SPA spokesman Byron Miller on Wednesday said traffic in North Charleston already is "10 times" as heavy as any new traffic that would result if a new terminal is built. But he noted the SPA is anxious to see state and federal transportation agencies come up with a plan for new roads, and that "the state is interested in how it's going to be paid for."

At this point, that question has no answer.

The SPA has set aside about $1.3 million to help the Corps oversee the traffic and road studies. The city and area transportation agencies are asking for additional money from the Legislature to pay for more studies.

The Corps also still is studying alternative sites for a terminal. In most cases, the locations are not being considered by the SPA but are used merely as comparisons to gauge the effects of a terminal at the old Navy Base.

In vetoing the possibility that the SPA's North Charleston Terminal could expand, Gregory said land there already is overcrowded with maritime operations, from Veterans Terminal to the Charleston Naval Weapons Station.

Another alternative, the little spit of land in the Cooper River known as Drum Island, also was struck from the list because it's too close to the new Cooper River bridge and would pose too many security risks, Gregory said.

Other sites still being studied are Daniel Island, where the SPA initially wanted to build a giant terminal, and Clouter Island.

The SPA, which is paying a total of $5 million to have the environmental studies done, has argued Daniel Island should not be studied as an alternative. The General Assembly passed legislation in 2003 rejecting the idea of a terminal there, after residents protested.

Port expansion already is running several years behind schedule, and the Port of Charleston is rapidly running out of room for the rising tide of cargo moving through the Southeast.

The next, and final, public meeting before the Corps wraps up its studies of the project is scheduled for May 12 at the North Charleston Coliseum.

---

Kris Wise covers ports and trade. Contact her at 937-5496 or kwise@postandcourier.com.