Do you have comments regarding the review of last meeting's actions agenda item?
I am pleased to see the creation of the William Hilton Parkway Gateway Corridor Independent Review Advisory Committee, and appreciate the opportunity to submit comments. Though there have been opportunities to do so over the last 2+ years, my impression was/is those comments had little impact.
As best I can, I have been following the activities & communications regarding the Corridor Project (CP). One of those activities was a town council meeting a few years ago where citizens were given 3 minutes to speak. One speaker was a traffic engineer (that’s how he identified himself). He spoke about the advantages of directly connecting to the CIX. He said 85% of the traffic crossing the bridge would use the CIX option. If that number is anywhere near being accurate, that is dramatic, and introduces a whole new set of parameters.
If even half the bridge traffic went directly to & from the CIX, there is probably no need to widen local 278 to 6 lanes, no need for additional traffic signals, no need for all the gyrations about turn lanes, buffers, and other accommodations. It would also reduce the impact on the Stoney community.
It would seem the simplest (& most efficient/economical) way to accomplish this would be to move the split at Wild Horse/Spanish Wells back to the bridge and have the lanes divide there. If additional funding is required there are the traditional options that were used in the past: bonds, grants, taxes, tolls, loans, assessments, and probably others.
Regarding the MKSK recommendations: What struck me was, here is yet another alternative that’s better. It makes the point that there is still room for improvement. I submit, if the CIV direct connect option were put into play, and an MKSK-type effort were made to design it, we just might hit a home run.
It should also be noted that when the 2019 penny referendum was passed the intent was, “to fund important projects to improve our local roadways and bridges.” $80M was to be allocated toward traffic improvements and bridge reconstruction on US278 near Hilton Head Island, $30M to be allocated toward US21 corridor improvements on Lady’s Island, and $10M to be allocated toward the installation of sidewalks and pathways throughout the county. This has now morphed into a $400+ million project with a much wider scope.
Bottom line: the CP decision will forever change the character of HHI. I am afraid that if we proceed down the current path, the changes that follow will be regretted. Future generations will look back & ask; how could they have let that happen? As it is now, the volume of daily traffic on 278 resembles Saturday turnover day. Facilitating faster, easier transiting on & off HHI will make it worse. The bridge traffic jams will be moved to the streets of HHI, starting at the first new traffic light.
Thinking about that takes me back to the simplest solution -- repair/replace the individual bridges one by one as needed and be done with it. But I realize that the train has left the station, and that option probably no longer exists. However, where the train stops is yet to be decided, and committee just might be in a position to make that determination.
Bob
Do you have comments regarding the review of the Draft Request for Qualification (RFQ) Scope of Work?
No response.
Open Town Hall HHI is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Open Town Hall HHI is voluntary. The comments in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.
Name
Bob SoltysDo you have comments regarding the review of last meeting's actions agenda item?
I am pleased to see the creation of the William Hilton Parkway Gateway Corridor Independent Review Advisory Committee, and appreciate the opportunity to submit comments. Though there have been opportunities to do so over the last 2+ years, my impression was/is those comments had little impact.
As best I can, I have been following the activities & communications regarding the Corridor Project (CP). One of those activities was a town council meeting a few years ago where citizens were given 3 minutes to speak. One speaker was a traffic engineer (that’s how he identified himself). He spoke about the advantages of directly connecting to the CIX. He said 85% of the traffic crossing the bridge would use the CIX option. If that number is anywhere near being accurate, that is dramatic, and introduces a whole new set of parameters.
If even half the bridge traffic went directly to & from the CIX, there is probably no need to widen local 278 to 6 lanes, no need for additional traffic signals, no need for all the gyrations about turn lanes, buffers, and other accommodations. It would also reduce the impact on the Stoney community.
It would seem the simplest (& most efficient/economical) way to accomplish this would be to move the split at Wild Horse/Spanish Wells back to the bridge and have the lanes divide there. If additional funding is required there are the traditional options that were used in the past: bonds, grants, taxes, tolls, loans, assessments, and probably others.
Regarding the MKSK recommendations: What struck me was, here is yet another alternative that’s better. It makes the point that there is still room for improvement. I submit, if the CIV direct connect option were put into play, and an MKSK-type effort were made to design it, we just might hit a home run.
It should also be noted that when the 2019 penny referendum was passed the intent was, “to fund important projects to improve our local roadways and bridges.” $80M was to be allocated toward traffic improvements and bridge reconstruction on US278 near Hilton Head Island, $30M to be allocated toward US21 corridor improvements on Lady’s Island, and $10M to be allocated toward the installation of sidewalks and pathways throughout the county. This has now morphed into a $400+ million project with a much wider scope.
Bottom line: the CP decision will forever change the character of HHI. I am afraid that if we proceed down the current path, the changes that follow will be regretted. Future generations will look back & ask; how could they have let that happen? As it is now, the volume of daily traffic on 278 resembles Saturday turnover day. Facilitating faster, easier transiting on & off HHI will make it worse. The bridge traffic jams will be moved to the streets of HHI, starting at the first new traffic light.
Thinking about that takes me back to the simplest solution -- repair/replace the individual bridges one by one as needed and be done with it. But I realize that the train has left the station, and that option probably no longer exists. However, where the train stops is yet to be decided, and committee just might be in a position to make that determination.
Bob
Do you have comments regarding the review of the Draft Request for Qualification (RFQ) Scope of Work?
No response.