Position Paper:

I-526 (Mark Clark) Extension

9/9/10

Charleston Moves advocates innovative planning, alternative modes of transportation and an

emphasis on active lifestyles. Although our reputation is for as advocacy for bicyclists and
pedestrians, our broader focus is on quality of life, active lifestyles and alternative forms of
transportation. We recognize the important role of the automobile, but we stress that people
should not be limited to using cars as their sole mode of transportation.
We have given detailed attention to the latest proposal from Charleston County and the South
Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) to expand I-526, linking it from Rte. 17
(Savannah Highway) approximately 7.9 miles to the end of what we call “The James Island
Connector.” The latest proposal is commonly known as “Alternative G.”
Our findings are divided into two main sections: 1/ an assessment of whether or not the plan
fulfils its own objectives, and, 2/ a list of other projects that might enter the broader conversation
about what would make transportation in the Low Country better.
THE PROPOSED I-526 EXTENSION DOES NOT MEET SC DOT OBJECTIVES
The stated purpose of the Mark Clark Expressway Project is “to increase the capacity of the
regional transportation system, improve safety and enhance mobility to and from the West
Ashley, Johns Island and James Island areas of Charleston.”
By the standards it authors outlined for the project, it is a failure, a non-starter, delivering
negligible bang for enormous bucks. If “enhancing mobility” includes cutting travel time and hours
spent on the road, SCDOT’s own statistical assessment of the potential results fails to support the
project’s $489 million price tag.
First, consider the department’s own statistics on how travel time and travel miles would be
improved:
 West Ashley and James Island commuters would save an average of only 36 seconds
 People travelling from Johns Island would experience an average 4.5-minute reduction
for a 30-min. commute.
 The proposed route would yield a 2% reduction in vehicle miles travelled (VMT).

Second, Note that the project doesn’t improve auto crash statistics on four of the most dangerous
stretches of roads, I-26 from Edge of Model Boundary to UA 17A, US 17 / Savannah Highway
from Route 162 to Bees Ferry Rd., Maybank Hwy. from Main Rd. to River Rd., and Main Rd. (It
could conceivably worsen conditions on Maybank Hwy.)

Third, looking at some of SC DOT’s non-statistical objectives, more huge shortcomings can be
found:

 While the proposal emphasizes that "the majority of people out along this route would like
a new roadway and connections," it neglects to include that they also said they
would like more alternative transportation…more green space…more bike and
pedestrian access, and that they do not want impacts to their way of life, wildlife,
wetlands, vistas...

 While it says a major route selection criteria was to “..avoid environmentally sensitive
areas (i.e. wetlands, historic sites), it shows proposed roadways in the middle of the
 marsh and wetlands and parks. 82%of land in the study area is listed as natural,
residential or agricultural. Alternative G, the proposed route, will convert 278 acres
from agricultural, vacant, undeveloped, residential and “special purpose” (church,
school, historic,..) and 0% is commercial.
o The proposal also openly acknowledges more Issues including: 1/ Road noise 2/
wildlife and habitat damage including changes in water flows in marshes
and impacts on streams 3/ negative impacts on Fenwick Hall archeoligical
site and on a second archeological site dating to 1656, 4/ Impact on over
130 acres of floodplain for Alternative G.  
 It says the intent was “to utilize areas with limited or no development to the greatest
extent possible…” If that is so, wouldn’t it be better to aim for the commercial and
industrial uses to consolidate the impacts, to have the roadway located near
centers that would use it – not in natural open spaces and residential areas?
(Roads like this mean development even if they’re in a marsh.)

 It is designed as a kind of “ring road” to alleviate traffic. But instead of “ringing” the city, it
dumps huge volumes of traffic directly onto Calhoun Street, already choked at rush hour
with Connector traffic.

WHY SHOULD ROADS BE THE ONLY ANSWER?

Our transportation issues can no longer be addressed simply by coating more of the Low Country
with asphalt, always trying to fix traffic problems with more roads that wind up bringing even more
cars, more traffic. It just gets worse and worse. We must encourage mass transit, ride sharing,
HOV lanes, commuter rail and light rail. The Mark Clark Expressway extension project would
spawn more single-story construction, more parking lots, and more conventional suburban
sprawl. It would detract from the beauty of our region. It would require rolling out approximately
9,266,400 square feet of asphalt, the equivalent of 16 Savannah Highway K-Mart sites or 435
football fields.

Roads bring development, often, undesirable development. Sometimes, it has despoiled pristine
marsh views. Is the community willing and ready to handle the inevitable development that will
follow the Mark Clark? As so many John’s Island residents have testified, development pressure
on the island is alarming. Once a remote rural farming community, suburban residential
development now creeps into the countryside, often frustrating farming operations that have
existed for generations. The Mark Clark will only exacerbate this problem. One need only look to
the Mount Pleasant extension of the Mark Clark for proof. The Mark Clark in this area was
supposed to alleviate traffic congestion on Highway 17 North and was completed in 1991. Data
indicates that traffic counts on Highway 17 North (between the Cooper River Bridge and
Cottingham Road) dropped from1992 to 1995. By 1998, however, the traffic counts for the same
stretch of Highway 17 North exceed those of 1991

One part of the proposal is a good sign: the inclusion of a parallel multi-use path for bicyclists and
pedestrians. Planners had good intentions in this case and are paying attention to the need for
such facilities. However, in this case, it does not overcome the negatives.

In our view, smart transportation requires a balanced approach: Roads and autos, routes and
rails for mass transit including light rail, streetcars and buses as well as ubiquitous bike lanes and
bike routes for bicycles as well as safe routes for pedestrians.

In its failure to meet its own objectives and for its huge price tag, the I-526 extension proposal
fails the test of common sense.

“MODEWISE” not “ROADWISE”

We deceive ourselves if we believe there is much more open, unused space that can be
developed in the Low Country. In the most densely developed parts of our region, even finding
the space to park a single additional car is daunting. In downtown Charleston if has become
almost mathematically impossible.

It is time that we replace the concept “Roadwise” with “Modewise.” As a community, we have
no other choice than to adopt new transportation options that can balance our systems and move
people in greater numbers comfortably, safely and efficiently. We don’t dispute that those options
should include making auto and truck traffic more efficient. But time has come for us to
acknowledge that mass transit and other options must be put into serious play. It is these other
options, not huge new roads that will help preserve neighborhoods and quality of life.

While we know that the sum allocated toward the Mark Clark cannot necessarily be transferred to
other projects, we nevertheless list some alternative projects that can be considered in the future.
We emphasize that they are not listed as direct alternatives to the I-526 project but presented as
options that could markedly improve aspects of transportation in the low country.

It is a smorgasbord of possibilities that could be mixed and matched to bring significant

transformation in our region. Examining this list, we hope, will stimulate conversations about
alternatives.

• Improve of the I-26 corridor (including making portions south of Cosgrove into a beautiful,
tree lined boulevard).
• Establish a light rail along a corridor from Summerville through North Charleston to
downtown Charleston.
• Make multi-mode boulevards out of roads like the Crosstown, Folly Road, Spruill and
Rivers Avenues, Savannah and Maybank Highways,
• Establish Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems to move large numbers of people along
existing major roads (including those mentioned above).
• Vastly improved and modernized CARTA DASH system (and give serious consideration
to the return of the Charleston streetcar),
• Return all one-way streets on the Charleston peninsula to two-way status, and make
Coleman Boulevard, Folly Road, and Savannah Highway more pedestrian/bike friendly.
• Quickly complete a bicycle-pedestrian crossing of the Ashley River together with hard-
surfacing a path for the entire length of the West Ashley Greenway. (The Greenway
should also undergo landscape and other improvements for park-goers as well.)
• Establish a system of “bike boulevards” in dense neighborhoods, and make bike lanes
and “sharrows” ubiquitous.
• Marshall broad-based multi-governmental support for Bike/Ped routes like our Battery to
Beach route (with an extension to North Charleston),

When residents of Charleston County approved the half-cent years ago, they gave government
officials some clear direction: to improve our road system and to protect more green space. They
also wanted much more attention to projects that improve mass transit and trips by bicycle and on
foot. These were not mere afterthoughts.

Even though this project includes provisions for bicyclists and pedestrians but it fails the overall
test. And our overall assessment of county-wide progress since passage of the half-cent sales tax
shows only the faintest of lip-service given to alternative forms of transportation, some of the
public’s stated priorities.

Even if the first square foot of it is never built, the I-526 extension project is already very costly
proof of that.