There are reasons to expect the continued tension between Palms Island and the SC Department of Transportation to ease before the beach season begins to peak in a few months. Competing bills pending at the General Assembly prompted the agency and city officials to continue talking in an effort to reach agreement on a new parking plan.
We encourage these efforts to reach a compromise that both sides can live with – one that balances the safety concerns of the beach community with the right of South Carolina residents to access their public beaches by traveling and then parking reasonably. on state roads.
A brokered deal would likely lead to a better and faster outcome than waiting for lawmakers to pass a bill to clear things up. A bill by state deputy Joe Bustos, R-Mount Pleasant, would eliminate the state’s word about street parking and leave it to the cities. Another bill pending in the Senate would clarify that beach communities cannot restrict parking on state roads without approval from the Department of Transportation. If the latter is approved, talks between DOT and beach communities would continue, but the agency would have added legal influence.
A long-running dispute over beach parking peaked in the summer, when Palms Island and other beach communities restricted access because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This sparked a backlash among other residents of the state, who believed that restrictions unfairly prevented them from accessing a public beach. The situation was more acute on the Isle of Palms, which has acted in recent years to restrict and regulate parking. Before the pandemic, the Department of Transportation largely limited its parking review to safety issues, such as ensuring free passage for emergency vehicles and that no cars were parked too close to intersections. But the reaction raised the question of whether the agency should examine these plans further; last month, he rejected the Palms Island parking plan and even revoked a previously approved 2015 plan that prohibited non-residents from using spaces on most streets.
Taking a step back, the dispute for parking on the beach is a piece of a bigger puzzle that has challenged South Carolina’s cities for years: our state has the fourth largest state highway system in the country, with the Department of Transportation controlling more than half of all road miles. And many state and maintained roads actually look a lot like local roads; half of all state roads are quiet side streets that do not qualify for federal funding.
This creates a series of challenges whenever a city wants to try something new to make the street more attractive. For example, the state rejected Charleston’s plan to add trees along the west side of Calhoun Street years ago. When the city wanted to redo the Low Battery, including changes to construction sites, parking lots and pedestrian crossings, it opted to take over the state’s Murray Boulevard. North Charleston recently took control of part of the Spruill and Reynolds avenues. Both travel through old parts of the city that are being revitalized or will be revitalized soon; the city was interested because owning the road gives it more leeway to handle parking lots, bike lanes and other changes to the project.
Even with more road financing with the gas tax increase approved in 2017, the Department of Transportation is looking to reduce the number of roads that the state is responsible for maintaining.
A few years ago, the agency launched a $ 10 million experimental program to encourage local governments to take certain state roads within its jurisdiction. Each transfer would come with an advance payment from the state to help keep the road going for the next 40 years. Nearly 20 local governments, including the cities of Charleston, North Charleston and Greenville, as well as Charleston County, have expressed interest, but the turnover of elections and other priorities have delayed any decisions. No money has been spent so far, but that could change later this year.
When she unveiled the pilot program, SC transport secretary Christy Hall said she would help the state narrow its focus on improving larger roads and bridges. And the state must continue to own and maintain all of the state’s main traffic arteries, even those that pass through cities and towns. But it makes sense for cities to control other local streets, which are the capillaries of these arteries.
The state must continue with its pilot program and expand it in the future. It is true that some local authorities were not interested because they felt that the agency did not offer sufficient incentives. While they would receive an amount projected to be sufficient for 40 years of maintenance, what happens after that? Perhaps the answer should not be a more generous handout from the state, but an expansion of the capacity of local governments to increase revenue.
Road maintenance is expensive work. If the state wants local governments to manage more of our streets and roads – and it should – the legislature must help them find a way to pay for it.