Hilton Head council workshop spotlights split over US-278 bridge and whether to give municipal consent

Hilton Head Island’s town council convened a special workshop on Jan. 20, 2024, to pore over the proposed US-278 corridor and replacement of the Mackay Creek eastbound bridge and to consider whether to give municipal consent to the county-led project. Residents, local leaders and state officials traded sharply different views on safety, design, funding and impacts on the island’s Gullah Geechee Stony neighborhood.

The hearing mixed technical presentation with pointed testimony and repeated pleas for protections. “This is a once-in-a-generation decision,” Councilwoman Patsy Bryson said in outlining tests she wants any consent to meet, calling for no increased paved width in Stony, dedicated pedestrian crossings and an escrow to guarantee neighborhood improvements. Nearly every speaker who identified as a Stony resident or advocate urged the council to insist on binding, enforceable conditions before supporting the county’s plan.

Why it matters: the eastbound Mackay Creek span was inspected Jan. 12, 2024, with SCDOT rating structure and substructure about 4 on a 9-point scale. In a letter read at the workshop, SCDOT Secretary Justin P. Powell said the bridge is approaching the end of its design life and Department officials could use funds they’ve reserved to pursue a stand-alone eastbound project if municipal consent is not given in a “timely” manner. Senator Tom Davis told the council the project’s federal environmental assessment (EA) currently expires June 28 and cautioned that delay or a no vote could make it difficult to retain State Infrastructure Bank and other funding reserved for the corridor.

What the project would do: town staff and the presenter, Sean Collin, described the current county/DOT alternative as a new single-span bridge approximately 121 feet wide (including a 14-foot shared-use path) and about 1.4 miles of the 4.2-mile corridor, with a design life of 75 years and a posted speed of 40 mph. The presenter said the project at today’s traffic volumes would reduce eastbound AM travel time by about 8 minutes 49 seconds and westbound PM time by about 10 minutes 36 seconds; a 2045 simulation projects larger reductions (roughly 15–16 minutes on key runs), according to the consultant’s slide deck.

Money and timing: speakers cited the project estimate shown in recent material (about $488 million at 30% design) and described roughly $300 million as committed—$80 million from a 2018 Beaufort County penny sales-tax referendum, $120 million identified from the State Infrastructure Bank and roughly $74 million referenced from SCDOT—leaving a funding gap on the order of $180 million. Senator Davis told the council that if municipal consent is delayed beyond the EA timeframe, the SIB allocation could be reallocated and SCDOT might pursue a limited, stand-alone rehabilitation or replacement focused on the deficient eastbound span.

Stony and safeguards: Stony residents, council members and several public commentators said mitigation proposals in the environmental assessment and earlier project materials are insufficient. Councilwoman Bryson and others called for a Stony improvement plan that would include a required pedestrian overpass (she suggested two), landscaped medians, no net loss of property and guaranteed funding for neighborhood mitigation (she proposed an escrow roughly $10 million as a starting point). Several council members said any conditions must appear in the municipal consent language submitted to SCDOT — not only in an MOU with Beaufort County — so the town can hold construction sponsors to specific, enforceable commitments.

Alternatives debated: some council members and technical supporters argued a 4‑lane option would not meet the project’s stated purpose of reducing congestion, noting DOT and some consultants concluded a 6‑lane new single-span bridge (three lanes each way) best meets the traffic modeling and long-term resilience goals; others urged exploring 2‑bridge or 4‑bridge configurations, reduced lane widths, or aggressive local measures (parking management, occupancy caps, demand management) to limit induced demand.

Public views were divided: business and tourism representatives warned that lengthy, piecemeal rehabilitation of aging spans could harm the local economy and workforce recruitment and urged municipal consent to preserve the corridor funding package. Preservation-minded residents and neighborhood advocates countered that wider bridges and added lanes risk irreversible harm to island character and the Stony community and pressed council to either decline consent or attach strict, enforceable conditions.

Next steps: staff said the meeting was informational only and that no vote would be taken that night. Council asked staff and legal advisers to draft clearer, harder-edged municipal-consent language and a revised MOU with conditions the council could consider at a future meeting; council members also asked Senator Davis and staff to seek an extension of EA timelines if needed to allow the town time to craft enforceable terms. The mayor closed the workshop with direction to return with draft language and additional clarifications.

Quotes that capture the meeting: “A vote for municipal consent is clearly passing the buck to the development pro members of the Beaufort County Council and the South Carolina DOT,” said Stephen Whittall, a resident of Indigo Run, urging delay. Senator Tom Davis told the council, “If [municipal consent] is not given by June 28… DOT feels like he has no choice but to go forward and to allocate the $74,000,000 that DOT had set aside for that first span.” Councilwoman Patsy Bryson said the town should offer “conditional municipal consent” only if the package includes a Stony improvement plan, pedestrian overpasses and protections against property takings.

What to watch: whether the council adopts a conditional-consent draft that it will forward to SCDOT and Beaufort County, whether SCDOT or the Corps of Engineers grants an extension of the EA period, and how the town and county propose to close the identified funding gap and guarantee Stony mitigation measures.

No vote was taken at the conclusion of the workshop; the council directed staff to prepare draft conditions and to return with language for further deliberation.