Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Signal Timing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City of Charleston says Folly Road signal retiming report due mid‑March; implementation anticipated in April
Summary
The City of Charleston has completed data collection for a Folly Road signal retiming study and expects a preliminary report by mid‑March, with initial implementation by early to mid‑April, city staff told the James Island Rethink Folly Road steering committee.
The City of Charleston has completed data collection for a signal retiming study on Folly Road and expects a preliminary timing proposal by mid‑March, with initial implementation possible in early to mid‑April, Eliza, a City of Charleston staff member, told the James Island Rethink Folly Road steering committee. She said the consultant will perform a second, summertime implementation and complete post‑implementation data collection and a final report in the fall, with recommendations delivered around June.
"The consultant has finished their data collection, and we are expecting their preliminary report done on their signal timing proposal any day now mid March," Eliza said. "We can complete that implementation by early mid April. There'll also be a summertime implementation ... and they will finish with their post runs, data collection, lessons learned ... in the fall."
Eliza also updated the committee on the town's Safe Streets for All (SS4A) planning grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation. She described the SS4A phase now underway as planning and community engagement: two public input meetings and a safety summit have been completed, and the consultant is moving into data analysis and countermeasure development before issuing a final report with recommended safety improvements.
Committee members and public commenters raised possible conflicts between the town's Rethink Folly Road proposals and South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT/DOT) projects, including a county project that would narrow a median to allow wider bike lanes. Kristen Crane, project staff, told the group she did not expect a conflict and offered to connect residents with county and DOT staff for plan‑level detail.
"I don't think that it's gonna conflict at all," Crane said of the potential overlap, while adding the committee would provide contact information so the resident can get more specific answers from county or DOT planners.
Public comment at the meeting tied the timing work to local safety concerns. Hillary Smith, who identified herself as living at 1155 Bradford Avenue, told the committee that traffic that has shifted onto Bradford since speed cushions were installed on nearby streets has increased speeds and risky conditions for children in her neighborhood.
"Since the speed bumps have gone in on Pauline, Bradford has become Johnson," Smith said, adding she has observed more children on bikes and scooters and drivers traveling as fast as 40 mph on Bradford.
The steering committee did not adopt policy at the meeting; the updates described schedule and next steps for consultant deliverables. City staff and committee members said they will coordinate with DOT and county engineers as the consultant's recommendations and the SS4A final report become available.
Votes at the meeting were procedural: the committee approved the prior meeting's minutes by voice vote and later elected a chair and vice chair (see separate article). The signal retiming and SS4A updates were presented for information and planning; no formal committee action on the timing or SS4A recommendations was taken at this meeting.
