Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Beaufort County staff outline scaled-back option for SC 170/US 278 triangle as local sales tax fails
Summary
DOT staff told the Beaufort County Transportation Committee on Jan. 15 that a county sales-tax proposal failed, leaving a roughly $190 million shortfall on the SC 170/278 triangle project and prompting a March 31 deadline from the State Infrastructure Bank to propose a revised plan or risk DOT proceeding with a smaller, urgent repair.
A DOT representative told the Beaufort County Transportation Committee on Jan. 15 that the county’s failed sales-tax measure has left a roughly $190 million gap on the SC 170/US 278 “triangle” project and that the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) has asked the county to explain how it will proceed by March 31.
The DOT representative said county leaders and legislators have explored alternatives, including a plan promoted by Senator Davis to build a new eastbound-only bridge span and retain two westbound lanes, producing a five-lane corridor instead of the previously planned six lanes. “There is a hard stop decision point that is required, by March 31,” the DOT representative said, describing SIB’s request for a response or the agency’s potential move to replace one failing span on its own schedule.
Why it matters: the triangle connects Bluffton and Hilton Head Island across US 278 and SC 170, and the project has been in planning for years. The committee heard that major infrastructure projects of this scale take time to design and fund, and that shifting the scope will require returning to the SIB because the original SIB agreement (and its $120 million contribution) was based on a six-lane concept.
Committee members pressed staff on funding, timing and approvals. A council member asked whether the town of Hilton Head’s municipal consent or town council position affects county obligations; the DOT representative said the SIB agreement is between the county and the state and that any change in scope would require SIB approval and coordination with DOT on project administration. “So long story short, if the SIB is comfortable with the modified project, that’s the only agreement required to move that project,” the DOT representative said.
Staff summarized next steps as: finalize a locally negotiated plan (the county council planned a public workshop on Jan. 21), craft a formal submission to the SIB before the March 31 deadline if a modified scope is selected, and continue design work where possible so funding can “catch up.” DOT officials said their goal is to have the project ready to bid by 2027 whether it proceeds as the full build, a modified build or a single-span replacement.
What was proposed: Senator Davis and other regional legislators suggested a solution built from currently available funds — roughly $300 million in available banked money — that would construct a new eastbound three-lane span and retain two westbound lanes to create a five-lane corridor. Staff said that approach could be priced to fit the available funding, but it would constitute a different scope than the original six‑lane application to the SIB and therefore would need bank approval.
Other details: the temporary phase of work (signing and lane configuration changes) is nearly complete and engineers are finishing signal timing updates in the corridor. Staff said DOT’s primary priority is replacing the failing span as quickly as possible; if a modified project can deliver that outcome, DOT indicated it would support the change. The DOT representative noted the department has roughly $90 million currently allocated to replace a single span on its own if necessary.
What’s next: county council planned a public workshop on Jan. 21 to discuss the alternatives and local policy choices. The SIB’s March 31 deadline frames the county’s short-term timeline for a formal county response. The committee did not take a formal vote on a revised project scope at this meeting.
Attribution: quotes and attributions in this story are derived from remarks by the DOT representative at the Jan. 15 meeting of the Beaufort County Transportation Committee; committee members’ questions are paraphrased and attributed by role when a name was not provided in the transcript.
Ending: County council and DOT will continue coordination; the committee was told the earliest realistic path to advertise for construction is 2027, subject to SIB approval and the chosen scope.
