Good morning. Brook Lyon here.
At last week’s ReThink Folly Road meeting, the SCDOT released a list of Folly Road improvements that it said would not be included in the final project because the Town refused to accept the raised medians that so many of our residents and businesses oppose.
As you can see for yourself if you watch the meeting online, Councilwoman Drayton-Crumblin and I immediately raised two objections: (1) The Town was being ambushed with a list we’d never seen before. And (2) the list was artificially inflated with items that shouldn’t have been on it because they aren’t in the Town.
Contacted by the Post and Courier for a response after the meeting, I sent a detailed email explaining our concerns and then followed up with them by telephone.
For whatever reason, very little of what I had to say ended up in the Post and Courier story that ran this morning.
So, in the interests of transparency for our residents, here’s the email I sent the Post and Courier on July 13 (three days before the story ran), which fully and accurately states the Town’s position:
Given the complicated history and details, I thought an email might be the best and clearest way to talk about where we are with the project.
As you know, an SCDOT presentation at last Wednesday’s ReThink Folly meeting included a list of items the department says it has removed from its Folly Road safety plan. And now that the Town has had a couple of days to review the document — that was the first time we’d seen it — we have more questions than ever about both the plan and the process that produced it.
More than half the items on the list either aren’t in the Town, involve shared jurisdiction, or appear to be routine SCDOT responsibilities.
Five of the items on the list aren’t in the Town, according to GIS. And several others are in areas where the Town and City share jurisdiction — which only serves to highlight the impracticality of SCDOT’s all-or-nothing, take-it-or-leave-it approach. With the exception of raised medians, these are all items that both governments agree should move forward.
What’s more, several additional items involve work that would typically be considered routine maintenance and improvements. For instance, the first item on the list is Folly Road repaving. But repaving a state road when it needs to be repaved is a basic SCDOT responsibility irrespective of any special safety project. In fact, according to the SCDOT website, the department has approved 8,505 miles of state road repaving in the normal course of its duties since 2017.
We look forward to learning how this list was developed, and why it includes so many items that don’t seem to belong there.
Second, the Town continues to be concerned about the apparent double-standard between SCDOT’s handling of this situation and a similar 2023 disagreement involving the city of Charleston.
As you’ll recall, the Town objects to only one portion of SCDOT’s Folly Road plan — the raised medians that our residents and merchants believe would create increased neighborhood cut-through traffic, slow emergency response times and hurt businesses. SCDOT’s response to those concerns? The all-or-nothing demand letter of April 25, which forced Town Council to deny municipal consent.
Contrast that with SCDOT’s response when the city of Charleston did not consent to the King Street portion of the department’s downtown bike-ped safety improvement plan in August 2023. It's our understanding that in that case, after initial suggestions that SCDOT might cancel the whole project, the department decided to work with the city to deliver other bike/ped safety improvements in the area. That was a sensible decision that put resident safety first, and we continue to believe a similar approach would be appropriate here on the Island.
Finally, despite these concerns and others, we continue to believe that collaboration would be the best path forward for SCDOT, the Town, and the residents and businesses of James Island.
Despite our differences over this project, the Town values its partnership with SCDOT, and appreciates the important work the agency does every day in our community and across the state. And while we’re disappointed by SCDOT’s ongoing refusal to consider the full range of safety improvements recommended in the ReThink Folly Road plan, including slower speeds and a new traffic light at Santee Street, we continue to support all of the currently proposed items except the raised medians.
With those things in mind, the Town remains ready to meet with SCDOT to find a responsible path forward that improves safety along Folly Road. If that’s the goal — and we all agree it is — it simply makes no sense to cancel the entire project over a single item that Town residents and businesses strongly oppose.
Brook Lyon, Mayor
Town of James Island