Council OKs new traffic plan

Streets to be added rather than widening highway

By David Slade
The Post and Courier
Wednesday, September 24, 2008



Previous storys

Consultant says widening road is wrong way to go, published 07/24/08

Charleston's Maybank Highway plan

For print, readers can go to www.charlestoncity.info, select Department of Planning and Neighborhoods, and in the list on the left, current projects.

Charleston County RoadWise plan

Or click here to go to the Roadwise Web site, click project list, and in the alphabetical list go to Maybank Highway

Charleston City Council signed off on a traffic improvement plan Tuesday for Maybank Highway on Johns Island, calling for a new network of streets rather than widening the two-lane thoroughfare.

On Johns Island there has been a debate about the best way to ease traffic on the highway while preserving the island's rural character and the grand oaks that shade the scenic roads.

Charleston County's road-building program, RoadWise, has developed a plan to turn Maybank Highway into a four-lane road divided by a planted median, with breaks for turn lanes.

City planners and consultants developed a much different plan, however, that calls for a network of two-lane roads intended to disperse traffic. The thinking is that with more ways to get around Johns Island, Maybank Highway would get less traffic.

Council approved the city's concept, which will be reviewed by Charleston County Council in October.

A key feature of the plan the "pitchfork," which roughly describes the

shape of a proposed road network between the Stono River and River Road, where Maybank Highway traffic backs up daily at rush hour.

The handle of the pitchfork is Maybank Highway, coming from the Stono River. The tines are new two-lane roads that would give motorists new routes to and from the bridge, and the proposed Interstate 526 extension, from River Road.

At previous meetings on the road plan, residents and property owners have questioned how the city would acquire the rights of way, and at what cost.

The city hopes property owners will be open to selling, or even giving, rights of way for the proposed roads because those roads would make their properties more valuable as the potential sites of new homes and businesses. Some property owners have said they would go along with the idea.

Charleston's plan for Johns Island, parts of which are within the city limits, calls for developing village-like hubs of homes and shops at several locations, including the area around the intersection of River Road and Maybank Highway.

Councilwoman Kathleen Wilson questioned whether the city's plan would turn parts of Maybank Highway into a slow-moving residential street.

"I want to get where I'm going," she told consultant Rick Hall.

Mayor Joe Riley said Maybank Highway between River and Bohicket roads could see the addition of one or two traffic lights, but would remain much like it is today.

Hall said the plan would lead to pleasant, walkable villages, but he conceded that the speed limit on Maybank Highway would need to drop to 25 mph in the three locations where village-like development is proposed: at River Road, Bohicket Road and midway between.

Representatives of the Coastal Conservation League and the Charleston Trident Association of Realtors spoke in favor of the city's plan Tuesday, as did several Johns Island residents and property owners.

No audience members spoke in opposition to the road network and "pitchfork" plan.

Councilman Tim Mallard, who represents the portion of Johns Island within the city, asked what the road network would cost, and how soon it could be done.

Hall said the first phase of the plan, the pitchfork, could cost $3 million more than the Maybank widening plan, if I-526 is not extended.

Add at least $18 million if I-526 is extended, Hall estimated based on costs projected in 2013, because a flyover would be needed from the bridge to one of the new pitchfork roads.

Share this story:
E-mail this story E-mail this story  Printer-friendly version Printer-friendly version  

Copy and paste the link:

Add this

Comments

LEYH (anonymous) says...

We wouldn't need any of this if Mayor Riley would leave us alone. We DO NOT need all of these developments. Now we are going to be guinea pigs for an experiment. Might work, might not.

We definitely don't need Angel Oak Village.

savetheangeloak.org

September 24, 2008 at 6:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

a_set_love (anonymous) says...

It becomes painfully obvious that some of the unworthy residents of James Island/Johns Island will now have to surrender their homes to Great Dictator Riley as he continues his march of conquest.............

But fear not, theres always room in the greater City of North Charleston for these refugees......... NoBama-08

September 24, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

pck5 (anonymous) says...

john's island is going to get developed no matter what - there's nothing we can do about that. what we have to deal with now is the WAY it's developed.

this is actually a really great step! of course this will work - this isn't a new idea, it's bringing it back to the basics of traditional neighborhoods. before the 50s when the emphasis became on subdivisions and car-driven development (leading to what we know as sprawl), a network of small roads would have been exactly how this was addressed.

http://www.newurbannews.com/AboutNewU...

September 24, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

DoaMM (anonymous) says...

Oh boy! More roads...More intersections...More lights...

Yay!

Not...

September 24, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

charlestonian (anonymous) says...

Looks like Corrupt Riley got his way, did anyone think he wouldn't?

September 24, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

mkris (anonymous) says...

Development, called "smart" growth, new urbanism, suburbanism or any of the other "isms", destroys a community. The only issue with development is will it take 5 yrs, 10 yrs or 20 years.
All the bunk about the grand old south, and every one of the Johns Island property owners would sell grandma's silver from her teeth for a buck.

September 24, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

yeahright (anonymous) says...

Let me get this straight: a "pitchfork", additional traffic lights, and lowering the speed limit to 25 mph is going to increase the flow of traffic???

September 24, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

charlestonian (anonymous) says...

No, it's going to increase access to areas that didn't previously have road connections. Which ties back to the land developers that are lining Corrupt Rileys pockets to push and support this plan.

September 24, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

rollo (anonymous) says...

As far as I can see, the only thing the "pitchfork" will accomplish is to shift some of the congestion from present "choke-points" to new "choke points" and as new developments (hub villages) are built around these new intersections, the new points will become as "choked" as the present ones are!

Maybank highway is over loaded as it is, and part of the problem is the "feeders" and private drives that make the left-turner 12 cars ahead of you the subject of musings that would make Letterman blush. That will only intensify under this plan. An expressway is needed and overdue. Let the "planners" sit on Maybank every day, twice a day, while tourists wonder if 'this left might be a shortcut to Kiawah'.

Complete the 526 to the JI connector and quit screwing around about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

September 24, 2008 at 7:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Notice about comments:

Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full Terms and Conditions.

Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!

Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.


 

Most Popular

 

Sponsored Links