Beaufort County hears SCDOT proposals for US 278 bridge replacement; debate centers on bike path and a tight SIB deadline

Beaufort County Council convened a February workshop to review South Carolina Department of Transportation proposals to replace the US 278/Mackay Creek bridge and to discuss funding paths, schedule and design tradeoffs.

SCDOT representatives outlined multiple alternatives, from a bridge‑only replacement to "lifeline" options that extend roadway connections to Spanish Wells Road and include a multi‑use bike‑ped path. The DOT presenter (identified in the meeting as Craig Winn) said construction‑only estimates ranged from about $257 million for a bridge without the multi‑use path to higher totals when shoulders, roadway connections and multi‑use facilities are included; lifeline and full‑scope estimates moved higher, into the mid‑hundreds of millions depending on scope and whether a separate roadway build is added.

Why it matters: County staff and SCDOT told the council that the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) needs a commitment by March 31. Staff recommended the town of Hilton Head and Beaufort County pass a joint resolution and prepare a term sheet or modified intergovernmental agreement to show alignment before the SIB makes final allocations. Without joint agreement, SCDOT said the fallback would be a more limited repair option (the transcript referenced an $88 million repair) rather than one of the larger replacement options.

Public comment and council reaction split largely along cost and use lines. Frank Babble, a bike advocate from Hilton Head, urged inclusion of multi‑modal facilities and warned the bridge would be “dangerous” without a safe way for bicyclists to get on and off the island. “People will be killed if we don't put a decent bike…facility on it,” Babble said (Frank Babble). Charles Perry, who identified himself as chairman of the Willow Harbor Traffic Committee, urged that DOT’s alternatives be implemented in ways that preserve local access at Windmill Harbor. Other residents and council members emphasized fiscal limits after a failed referendum and urged the county to “live within our means,” pointing to the roughly $298 million in currently available funding and the remaining funding gap for options that include larger roadway work or a multi‑use path.

Funding picture and tradeoffs: County and DOT staff summarized the available package as roughly $298 million composed of county funding (around $101 million from local sources including 2018 sales tax and impact fees), about $74.5 million originally committed by DOT (with DOT indicating the potential to add roughly $16 million more), roughly $3 million in right‑of‑way donations from the town, and a $120 million SIB participation agreement referenced in the meeting notes. DOT staff said the DOT figures reflect construction costs only and include contingencies and inflation assumptions; preliminary engineering and some other soft costs were called out as not included in the presented construction totals.

Schedule and delivery: SCDOT reiterated a target of beginning construction in 2027 if the project advances and discussed design‑build as a delivery option that can sometimes yield incremental time savings and scope innovations (for example, making a multi‑use path a contract requirement). Staff cautioned, however, that design‑build would not eliminate key critical‑path tasks such as environmental (NEPA) documentation, right‑of‑way acquisition and utility relocations.

Utility, inspection and staging concerns: Council members asked pointed questions about water‑system relocations (the local water district—PSD—was discussed as a large utility whose relocation costs were budgeted at roughly $16 million in the DOT estimate, although some attendees referenced a $20 million figure), and about the bridge inspection cycle. DOT staff warned the bridge is on a one‑year inspection cycle and could be load‑restricted if future inspections identify serious deficiencies, which would constrain buses, school buses and heavy trucks on the structure—an urgency council members said weighed in favor of timely agreement with Hilton Head.

Next steps: County staff said they would draft a joint resolution for consideration by both councils and scheduled a joint workshop for Feb. 12 at the Buckwalter (Buckwalter Rex Center) to further identify a preferred option and funding plan ahead of the SIB deadline. No formal county action to select an option or allocate additional funds was taken at the workshop.

Sources and attributions: Direct quotes and attributions in this story come from the workshop transcript. Speakers quoted by name or role include Frank Babble (bike advocate, Hilton Head), Charles Perry (chair, Willow Harbor Traffic Committee), Craig Winn (SCDOT presenter, identified by meeting participants), county staff who outlined funding, and multiple council members who asked questions during the Q&A. Several public commenters also raised concerns about the cost of a multi‑use path and whether local infrastructure needs should have higher priority.

The council adjourned after public questions and SCDOT remarks; staff reiterated the March 31 timeline for SIB commitment and the need for a joint town/county resolution to preserve funding options.