Election Day Reminder - Final  Candidate Survey Updates 3/24/25 - Recent Highway 41 News

Election Day Reminder and Final Updated Candidate Survey

Tomorrow is election day for the Mount Pleasant special election and all residents are encouraged to get out and vote.

In anticipation of that election, Smart Growth 41 recently set out to clarify the positions of the candidates for Mount Pleasant Town Council regarding the expansion of Highway 41. While a County project, there are several aspects of the Highway 41 expansion where the County is expected to look to the Town for cooperation and consultation.

The Smart Growth 41 Committee will not be making any formal endorsements in this election, but we have shared their responses below so you are aware of their positions on issues surrounding the project.

**This survey was updated today to reflect candidate responses that were received after the initial deadline**

The full responses are below in this email and will be available to view on the Smart Growth 41 website (https://smartgrowth41.org). We have compiled these responses for informational purposes for any Town of Mount Pleasant residents that are concerned about the expansion of Highway 41 or who have an interest in knowing where the candidates stand on this major infrastructure project. We hope this will serve as a valuable resource and as a supplement to your research about the policy positions of the various candidates.

If you have any other questions about the upcoming election or need to confirm your voter registration status or polling place, please click here to visit the Charleston County Board of Elections website.

Highway 41 Updates and Recent News

Many of you have probably also seen the news in the Post and Courier that the budget for the Highway 41 project has increased by $100 million and that Charleston County expects construction to begin next year. Despite what Charleston County says, it is still far from a done deal that this project will move forward and it is highly unlikely that they would be able to break ground by next year. In fact, considering the county now wants to spend $100 million more on this Laurel Hill “Parkway to Nowhere,” it is all the more reason to continue fighting.

As of last week, the Department of Environmental Services (formerly DHEC) informed us that the project is still working its way through their permitting process and that they are still working behind the scenes with the County to respond to our comments from the June comment period and public hearing. Even though we have not heard from DES (and given their policies and procedures there will be a direct response to every comment submitted), DES has acknowledged these comments, is taking them into account and are forcing the County to answer many of the hard questions they have refused to previously answer before they make a decision about moving forward.

Smart Growth 41 continues to press DES to reject this permit application (and encourage you to do so as well) and if they were to reject their permit application, it would significantly jeopardize the ability to this project to move forward. Either way though, once they reach a decision (positive or negative) the Army Corps of Engineers will still need to go through their own permitting and review process. This will allow another opportunity for the public to provide comment both virtually and in person, so there are still plenty of opportunities to continue to push back on this project. Only then will a final decision be made regarding the project, so it is important that we do not give up the fight.

Questionnaire

The following questions were asked of the candidates. You will find their responses below.

1)    Do you support any version of Alternative 7 for the Highway 41 expansion project, including the current "Road to Compromise" proposal?

Bryngelson: (Late response-added 3/17/25) In studying the options 7a seems to best meet the needs of the project and provide the highest level of service and reduced traffic.  As someone who has been part of many road projects in the Lowcountry I would strongly suggest the Flyover option as the best for traffic flow and it is the most esthetically pleasing look.  There is no perfect solution, however the 7A option does a good job of balancing concerns with functionality.

Harmon: (Late response-added 3/24/25) NO

Lacy: I strongly oppose Alternative 7 of the Highway 41 project and the so-called "road to compromise" for several reasons. First, this project threatens the local environment, including the valuable Laurel Hill Park, and could lead to further harm from future development in the area. Additionally, the project is expected to cost at least $30 million more than originally budgeted, placing an unnecessary financial burden on taxpayers.

The plan also overlooks important safety issues, particularly pedestrian crossings, which must be addressed to protect all highway users. Lastly, the project fails to address the true traffic problems and does not improve the highway as a vital evacuation route.

Swain: I do not support any part of Alternative 7 for the HW 41 expansion. Existing right of way is sufficient to complete the Alternative 1 proposal for Highway 41 without any additional improvements. Some minor right of way issues can be determined where needed. The “Road to Compromise” will cost almost $30 million more than what was originally budgeted to expand Highway 41. The “Road to Compromise” does not seem to address or improve any of the well-documented detrimental aspects of Alternative 7. The multi-modal path meant to accommodate cyclists, pedestrians, skateboards, etc… can continue to be built and could instead be redirected to turn left at Dunes West Boulevard coming from the bridge.

Tinkey: I am for alternatives where the positive and negative impacts of the Hwy 41 project are equitably shared and have the least impact on the environment. At the current time Charleston County has chosen their preferred alternative and they are the governing authority.

Van Horn: I'm not a fan of the Alternative 7 for Highway 41. There's too much of the wetlands that would be filled in as well the nearly 50 acres of right-of-way including 22 acres of Laurel Hill Park. It makes no sense to have Hwy 41 structured with 4 lanes coming from the Wando River Bridge, then  merge into 3 lanes, and back into 4 lanes as you near the Hwy 17 area.

Being a person that thinks outside the box, the only alternative that would help make the most sense and help ease traffic would be to create a total of 3 lanes along the entire corridor from the Wando River Bridge to the point that begins the 4 lanes near Hwy 17. I believe that near Hwy 17 and Hwy 41 that there should be a Fly Over to help ease traffic even more.

Spedden: No. My sentiments on this have been expressed at public hearings, and other communications to Charleston County. Alternative 7 does not make sense, is harmful to environment, and is the costliest option. It exceeds the other options by over $23 million.

2)    Do you support any future widening of Dunes West Boulevard or further widening of Park West Boulevard?

Bryngelson: (Late response-added 3/17/25) It seems that to releave traffic in a measurable way we are forced to either widen Dunes West and Park West Blvds or widen 41 impacting the Phillips community.  I do believe that historic communities play an important role in the fabric of Mt Pleasant and creating a major road expansion thru these communities will forever change their character.  I would trend toward expanding areas that are already developed in lieu of transforming historic communities.

Harmon: (Late response-added 3/24/25) Absolutely NOT

Lacy: I will only support the widening of Dunes West Blvd or any further action on Park West Boulevard if it is directly requested by the residents who use these roads on a daily basis.

Swain: No, we need to protect our subdivisions and keep fast-moving traffic away from our pathways, sidewalks, and homes. Traffic on residential streets introduces noise and pollution, and most importantly, it poses a safety hazard. Keep through traffic to major thoroughfares and off the side streets.

Tinkey: No.

Van Horn: No, there's no need to widen these areas. The one concern that I have is that these areas need to have limitations and restrictions to any Semi Trucks that may travel through the area.

Spedden: No. These roads are part of a Master design for the Dunes West and Park West developments. They were designed to support a community and not designed to be part of the South Carolina Highway system. Park West Boulevard’s expansion was planned and still has traffic issues. All American Boulevard will soon be connected to Park West Boulevard and a new circle is being built to alleviate traffic flow at Park West Boulevard and Park Avenue.

3)    Do you support any Highway 41 expansion proposal that includes adding a new road between Highway 41 and Park West Boulevard through Laurel County Park?

Bryngelson: (Late response-added 3/17/25) I would like to see come designs of the finished product before I can give full support of 22 acres of park being turned to road.  It is feasible to design roads and landscape in such a way as to have a positive impact on the surroundings, rather than running rough shod through nature.  We have a traffic problem, it will not go away, and we must address it by building roads, but we can build roads that enhance and instead of detracting.

Harmon: (Late response-added 3/24/25) Absolutely NOT

Lacy: No.

Swain: No there is no need since Alternative 1 is a viable option without running a roadway trough Laurel Park and creating an island of homes on Joe Rouse/Bessemer Road. The home values of these Park West homes will decrease in value with alternative 7.

Tinkey: No.

Van Horn: No - as previously mentioned, I'm for protecting our Green Spaces as well ensuring the Safety of Pedestrian traffic.

Spedden: “No. This only adds expense, threatens the environment, and will add travel time. This part of the Alternate 7 plans still requires the widening of Park West and Dunes West boulevards. It is part of the larger plan, not a stand-alone solution.”

4)    It appears that part of the current “Road to Compromise” design will require the use of land and the alteration of roads owned and controlled by the town of Mount Pleasant. As such Charleston County will require the consent of the Town to move forward with the current design. Would you oppose granting these rights to the County, thus forcing them to attempt a taking of the land through eminent domain or a redesign of the “Road to Compromise?”

Bryngelson: (Late response-added 3/17/25)  I think it is short sited to think that one vote on Mt Pleasant Town Council would have the ability to "Force" Charleston County Councils hand and trigger eminent domain.  Also, I don't believe that eminent domain is the correct term in this situation, we are talking about Right of Way acquisition and parcels are purchased from landowners at fair market value.  In all situations I believe that working as a team towards a common goal produces a much better outcome than being an obstructionist.  I would work with all the parties involved to find the most palatable solution for each group.  It is going to take compromise by everyone but in the end, we have a shared goal of alleviating congestion now and in the future.

Harmon: (Late response-added 3/24/25) I would definitely oppose granting any rights of our Town property to the county for this project.

Lacy: As an elected official of the Town of Mount Pleasant, I will not give consent to Charleston County for the "road to compromise" project. Withholding consent can serve as a tool to prompt a redesign that better serves the needs of our community.

Swain: We need to take a hard stand against the town and the county from continuing to think that alternative 7 is a viable solution. I will vote no on the waste of money and damage to the environment in Laurel Hill Park. Enticement versus eminent domain should be used before all else has failed for the minimal right-of-way adjustments needed. The council has not placed a priority on a hurricane evacuation route so neither has the county. The widening of Clements Ferry Road will drive additional traffic towards a road (HW 41) that should have already had an infrastructure solution. We are already way behind the power curve to fix the problem.

Tinkey: As previously stated I would oppose filling wetlands of property owned and controlled by the Town.

Van Horn: Yes I would oppose granting the rights to the County. The County has had endless opportunities to create a viable Road to Compromise. Their current plan is not even close to a compromise when you look at the acreage they're looking to utilize as well the environmental impact with the filling in of wetlands.

Spedden: Yes, I would absolutely oppose the granting of rights to the county. I would ask that the Mount Pleasant Town Council to take a stand and say NO to the current options. Charleston County has failed to address the original problem and now has tried to make it the problem of Mount Pleasant.

5)    The current “Road to Compromise” design was presented to County Council and voted on without any of the same level of public involvement, comment periods, or years of study and analysis the design team used to ultimately refine the original list of 12 alternatives down to the initially preferred Alternative 1 proposal for Highway 41 expansion. 

Bryngelson: (Late response-added 3/17/25) I am unsure of the question that is being asked, but my thought is that it is being suggested that the "Road to Compromise" was crafted behind closed doors and then dropped on the public without sufficient commentary.  I have read through the vast amount of information and presentations on the 12 alternatives and the current option.  This has been ongoing since 2017, and we are still not building roads.  Each day the construction costs increase as does the traffic.  My private industry experience is bringing Heavy Civil projects from concept to contract and setting them up to finish on time and in budget.  We need more of that in government.  I am front porch conversations guy, not a back room deal person.  From the outside looking in I can only speculate on how things transpired and that doesn't solve traffic.  I do know that we unfortunately will never have a Perfect scenario and have every party completely satisfied, but once we come to the table an decide to be people of action and start these improvements, we will be much closer to shorting commute time to work, school and sports practice.  Those are things that give you time back to spend with your family and not raging on the road.  Thats the end goal.

Swain: (Updated 3/17/25 for clarity):  I do not agree with the Road to Compromise or any other alternative that removes more wetlands and builds a road through Laurel Hill Park.  The County needs to come up with a solution that ensures a safe evacuation route on HW 41 for all of its citizens.

Our town council can drive the solution to the HW 41 improvement if they have the desire to fix the problem those of us who live north of the IOP know exists now. North Mount Pleasant has no representation on the council and our voice is not being heard or worse yet, ignored. This is only one of the major issues that are affecting the northern part of town that the council does not understand and is failing to take action. We need someone who will be our voice on the council after 25 March and when additional seats that will become available in the fall election cycle. We only need to look at who is on the planning commission to see the individuals running for office who are failing to understand what needs to be done outside their own neighborhoods.

Tinkey: The more deliberative and inclusive process involving all stakeholders the better. Public input matters and strategic planning is paramount so we don’t end up with major bridges which are inadequate in less than 50 years.

Van Horn: Though there's not a question proposed in this section, the Public should always be involved in the decision process. To bypass public input is an immense abuse of government power. To me personally, it is no different than the Patriots Point Tax that was recently proposed. The public had no knowledge of a proposed tax that could have been passed by Council, had there not been an outcry from the Residents. Anything that impacts the residents of the Town needs to be Voted on. Folks spoke loud and clear with the recent 526 referendum vote in November.

Spedden: I feel the Road to Compromise was done in a vacuum and needs to be revisited. It has become an emotional issue, and everyone appears to be at odds. I would recommend the Mount Pleasant Town Council say NO to the “road to Compromise options.

While several other viable new alternatives were proposed by the community to the design team at stakeholder meetings that occurred in the abbreviated outreach period in the wake of the announcement of the “Road to Compromise” proposal, they were summarily rejected by the design team before they could be seriously studied. Would you support the County withdrawing the “Road to Compromise” proposal that is currently under review by the Army Corps of Engineers to allow such new proposals to be considered and to ensure that any newly proposed solutions go through the same rigorous public vetting process as the original 12 alternatives before any new application is submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers? 

Bryngelson: (Late response-added 3/17/25) Re starting the permit process is a recipe for increased traffic and delays in starting the construction of this project.  It has been nearly 8 years in the works.  I am pro the idea of getting thru permitting and making modifications after the permit is issued.  You can always build less than the permit is issued for, you just can build more.  The residents deserve to have traffic relief and an opportunity to gain back some quality of life.

Harmon: (Late response-added 3/24/25) Yes, I would support new proposals being considered and studied by multiple agencies and firms.  Especially since the cost just increased by $100 million dollars.  We had already funded this project via an increased sales tax to the county years ago.  A cheaper and faster fix could have been done between then and now and still can be done to help alleviate congestion in the meantime.  A roundabout could be placed at each of the lights on 41 and a fly over at Hwy 17 and Hwy 41.

Going through a beautiful natural park is a sickening option and pushing traffic back through the neighborhoods from which the traffic is already stuck makes zero sense.

I hope the town is smart enough to block future master planned developments on 41, specifically on the republic tract for which they are in discussions with a developer proposing another 2000+ homes to be built near the Wando Bridge.  Between this possibility and the semi truck depot now off Faison Rd, possibly exiting out 41, we have some big concerns to address in the coming months.