Group hits cost of I-526Alternate plan does job cheaper, advocates say By Tenisha Waldo (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Gas. Brake. Gas. Brake. For years, state and local traffic planners have maintained that completing the Mark Clark Expressway is the best way to solve traffic woes in the area. Critics, meanwhile, said the project was too expensive, could cost even more than planned and would destroy the environment. They said planners should look at cheaper and more efficient alternatives, but they never had explicit examples — until now. Armed with graphs, maps and renderings, the Concerned Citizens of the Sea Islands and the Coastal Conservation League say they have proof that it doesn't cost $420 million to fix the area's traffic problems. They say their solutions would cost half that price tag. The two groups hired transportation engineers from Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin of Orlando, Fla., to research and develop alternatives for the planned Mark Clark extension. They hosted a design charrette last month where residents gave their input. Megan Desrosiers of the Coastal Conservation League said 300 to 400 people attended. Traffic consultants found about 45 percent of traffic on Savannah Highway is just passing through, Desrosiers said. The general idea behind their latest concept is to develop a grid of connected roads that would diffuse local traffic in West Ashley and on Johns and James islands and keep main streets, such as Folly Road and Maybank and Savannah highways, less congested for cars just passing through. Desrosiers said their plan would cost about $207 million for construction and demolition and have a smaller impact on wetlands. It could increase opportunities for redevelopment where big roads are replaced with smaller ones. That means more jobs, and also more central communities would be established where roads like the Mark Clark aren't needed, she said. Cities across America, including Chattanooga, Tenn., and Portland, Ore., have modified or removed interstates and instead built pedestrian-friendly intersections that are more pleasing to the eye, according to handouts provided by the Coastal Conservation League. Desrosiers said local governments should reform policies to reflect the paradigm shift. "It's really a recognition that land use and transportation drive each other," she said. "They have to go hand in hand." The extended Mark Clark would cross the Stono River to Maybank Highway on Johns Island, cross back over the Stono onto James Island, extend around the north end of James Island County Park and connect to the end of the James Island connector. The project is undergoing preliminary environmental impact studies. Reach Tenisha Waldo at twaldo@postandcourier.com or 937-5744. |
Article toolsSponsored Links |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net 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 charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" 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. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 9 comment(s)
Posted by charlestonian on February 24, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Grids aren't the answer. Do you really think local residents want to increase the traffic on there local roads thru there sub divisions where there kids are playing? Pretty soon all the interconnected grid roads will have speed humps on them and everyone will be back on the main roads.
Posted by moonpie on February 24, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would have to see this on a map but it sure seems EASIER to connect the Mark Clark as initially proposed. I think you'll keep the "passer throughs" out of the residential and high traffic areas??
Posted by PeterShanley on February 24, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, if they can fix the traffic problems for less money than I-526 and bring in more jobs locally to Charleston with redevelopment, it looks like a winning situation to me. As I understand it, they're looking at putting in those secondary streets in commercial areas, not residential ones. Let's see more of these ideas.
Posted by charlestonian on February 24, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How many commercial areas on Johns Island do you know of that interconnect the island? Or is part of there plan to change residential areas into commercial for these interconnecting roads? Finishing 526 is long past due, it needs to be finished to alleviate the traffic issues, there is no way around it.
Posted by sweetsouthernpearl on February 24, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's reflect on the past...
What ills did 526 cure for Mt. Pleasant or North Charleston?
What problems has 526 brought to the table where it has already been constructed?
Posted by charlestonian on February 24, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Umm ok, in that light, lets think of a Charleston without 526. Everyone will be driving down Sam Rittenberg to get to North Charleston and West Ashley, I think that road is a bit busy now. Or we can all drive downtown and jump on 26, oh wait that is crowded to. Or we could all drive out to Summerville on 61 to get to North C. or West Ashley.
Face it the area is growing and the roads need to grow with it. Unless you think we get put up a fence around Charleston and keep people from coming in?
Posted by PalmettoDP on February 24, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The claim that cities have "modified or removed interstates and instead built pedestrian friendly intersections" is somewhat misleading. Cities do this under two circumstances - the freeway can be replaced with a tunnel (Boston) or traffic on the freeway does not justify the maintenance cost of keeping it there (Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco). I'm all for better bicycle and pedestrian facilities and think we need to thoroughly evaluate the pros and cons of extending 526 before we commit to it - but we also need to be honest with ourselves about the abiliy of a grid system through neighborhoods to solve our traffic problems. Has anyone suggested building a light-rail system for our area?
Posted by rollo on February 24, 2008 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So, P&C,... Where are these "graphs, charts, and maps?
I'd like to see them. I'd like to see them compared to the original maps for the I-526.
You can report all the opinions you want, nothing provides facts like a picture. You know this and that's why you won't.
Posted by icbmman on February 25, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For the P&C to continue giving the CCL and CCSI such a prominent voice just shows blatant bias in their coverage. I'm wondering if the newspaper has an agenda with prohibiting the I-526 extension.
These grided roads would be far costlier than these groups claim, because the properties that would have to be acquired are already developed. And as others pointed out, the people who live in the adjoining neighborhoods would probably implement measures to quell a significant amount of traffic such as lower speed limits and/or speed bumps. Here's another argument against the grided system: where would these roads end? They would have to funnel into and out of Savannah Highway, Maybank, and Folly Road, thereby creating a bottleneck. In order to provide TRUE connectivity, bridges connecting West Ashley, Johns Island, and James Island would have to be built, and that would cost far more millions than extending the Mark Clark.
Like I've said numerous times ad nauseum: build the I-526 extension with only one access point to Johns Island; build the interconnected roads as 4-lanes with sidewalks; widen River, Maybank, and Main roads; and enforce current zoning laws that prohibit massive, unplanned developments. Lastly, start building infrastructure for light rail or (more preferably) a monorail/monobeam transit system.
Why is it that most of this country's leaders are void of ideas and imagination? Why do they think that regressive, small ideas are the best?