Rethink Folly Road committee awaits DOT safety audit results; consultant funding stalled

The Rethink Folly Road committee on James Island heard renewed concerns July 15 about the placement of traffic signals and the pace of follow-up on a DOT safety audit, and members said funding for a consultant to coordinate grants and design work remains unresolved.

The committee chair said the town and other jurisdictions have continued to press SCDOT on changes but have mostly received revisions to earlier concepts. A privately raised issue during public comment underscored how signal placement can affect safety: resident Richard Stuhr of 1350 Pickett Street said recent changes at the Grimble/Soledigree intersection make it harder for drivers and bicyclists to see signal changes when approaching Folly Road. “When they changed the stoplights there, they put the stoplights on the far side of the intersection … If they were on the far side of the intersection, people could see them,” Stuhr said.

Why it matters: the safety audit is the committee’s primary tool for shaping what SCDOT will study or fund, and committee members said being listed on DOT’s safety project list improves chances of getting construction dollars. Committee members and town staff said many residents voiced opposition to proposed medians during public meetings; the town has passed those comments up the chain.

Committee debate centered on two linked problems: (1) whether SCDOT will move from audit concepts to funded improvements, and (2) who will assemble grant applications or provide project coordination if jurisdictions cannot agree on a consultant. The chair summarized the conclusion of the item as a set of follow-ups: ask county staff for a status update on grant funding and request clarification from SCDOT about which audit concepts are on its funded safety list.

Members described a breakdown in cross-jurisdictional direction to the consultant role. One committee member said the consultant had been expected to coordinate grant applications, but the county did not give clear direction and therefore the consultant (Kyle/COG referenced in meeting) has not had a mandate to prepare applications. The committee recalled prior budgeting for consultant work: “when we initially started this committee, we had $60,000 a year budgeted for the consultant, and that was split proportionally by the jurisdiction such that Folly Beach this year was $6,000,” a committee speaker said. A county representative was not present to clarify the county’s position.

Committee members pressed for smaller, interim grant work if full consultant funding is unavailable. One participant said a tool used earlier in the process (referred to in the meeting as a previous consultant product) could be leveraged for modeling, but participants said grant-writing and coordination remain stalled until jurisdictions provide unified direction. Town staff proposed adding a county-briefing to the next agenda to get a clear update on the county’s role and any pending grant decisions.

The committee also discussed SCDOT’s process: a safety audit produces conceptual recommendations, then jurisdictions and DOT refine those concepts, DOT performs traffic modeling and decides what it will implement within its budget, and other recommendations remain available for jurisdictions to pursue with other funds. Committee members said being on DOT’s safety-list helps secure SCDOT funding.

Next steps: The chair asked to place a county update and a DOT clarification on the next agenda; the committee said it will continue to press jurisdictions for a coordinated approach to consultant funding and grant applications.

Ending: The committee did not take a formal vote on new funding; members said they will report back at the next meeting with any county or DOT responses.