Mount Pleasant Election Day - HIghway 41 Candidate Survey Enclosed [Updated 11/4/25]

Full Candidate Responses to Our Survey:

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?

Will Haynie: I do not support the Road to Compromise Plan as long as the “Southern Parkway” through Laurel Hill Park is in the design. As Mayor, I spearheaded the vote by Council years ago to force the removal of Alternative 7-B that would have re-routed traffic onto Bessemer and into Park West. Town legal counsel advises that the vote negating Alternative 7-B is still authoritative.

Curt Thomas: I support the principle of seeking a balanced, context-sensitive solution for the Highway 41 corridor that relieves congestion, improves safety and evacuation capacity, while minimizing impacts to neighborhoods, natural resources, and parks. However, I would not commit in advance to any single proposed alternative, including Alternative 7 or the “Road to Compromise,” without careful review, further public vetting, and coordination with SCDOT, Charleston County, and relevant stakeholders.

I wish our leadership had worked more closely with the County earlier instead of waiting until now. We have had almost five years to collaborate and voice our community concerns at the table. Because of this delay, we risk losing the 60 million dollars that has already been allocated for this project. If that funding is reallocated to another project elsewhere in Charleston County, our residents will be left without relief from current traffic congestion.

As a former state trooper, I am also deeply concerned that if we lose this funding due to inaction, it could impact our hurricane evacuation route. The volume of traffic leaving the Park West and Dunes West area during an evacuation is already a challenge, and without these improvements, our residents could face dangerous delays in a true emergency.

I am open to a compromise version of the project, but it must be modified to be more community-sensitive, data-driven, and shaped by meaningful public engagement.

Alex Crosby: No, I do not support Alternative 7.

Jenny DeSart: I would support any sort of version that shows purpose and intent and makes sense for Mount Pleasant. The Road to Compromise proposal is not supported by so many residents in Park West and Dunes West, and I do not support this. I think we need to figure out a viable alternative to present as time is limited. A viable alternative that considers both the Phillips community and Park West and Dunes West as well as other residents involved in this area as they are directly impacted by these decisions and should be involved in the process.

Brianna Harmon: No.

John Iacofano: I do not support Alternative 7 or the current “Road to Compromise” proposal. I believe the most practical and responsible approach is to improve the existing Highway 41 corridor and Bessemer Road, rather than pushing traffic around neighborhoods through Laurel Hill County Park.

We can achieve meaningful relief by adding a center turn lane on Bessemer Road, improving intersections, and investing in traffic flow at both Highway 17 and 41. These improvements would help alleviate congestion without dividing communities or disturbing parkland.

I also support the “4-3-4” concept — four lanes south of the Phillips community, three lanes through it, and four lanes north toward the Wando bridge — as a balanced near-term solution. In reality, I think we all know that within 10–20 years, there will be pressure to widen the entire corridor to four lanes. We should plan for that future responsibly now, without prolonging the process any more than necessary.

As a Mount Pleasant Town Councilmember, I attended the County Council meeting when this issue was on the agenda. Despite representing the community directly affected by this project, I was not given the floor to speak, and some members of County Council were downright rude in their handling of the discussion. I also spoke at the DHEC meeting to confirm my position publicly and ensure that Mount Pleasant’s voice was included in the record.

Perry Rourk: I do not support any version of Alternative 7, including the current “Road to Compromise”. I have attended multiple meetings, including the DHEC meeting, where I voiced my opposition to the “Road to Compromise.” I have also attended Charleston County Council meetings regarding Highway 41 and intended to speak at the most recent one, but the Council did not provide the public with that opportunity.

Criag Russack: I will not support any version until I have the documents in hand and actually physically walk the site plan to see how if any adverse effects it has on the residents. I am as you know not a council member at this time and would be negligent in making a solid position without all the facts.

**11/3/25: Candidate responded with the additional clarifying language: No I don’t support the “Road to Compromise” proposal.

Gary Santos: [No responses received]

Mike 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. Should the remote opportunity exist to go back to the drawing board this would be a guiding goal for me.

Kathryn Whitaker: I do not support the current “Road to Compromise” proposal or any version of Alternative 7 as it stands today. The process has left too many unanswered questions about environmental impact, neighborhood access, and long-term traffic benefits. I would support a solution that genuinely relieves congestion, protects surrounding communities, and reflects transparent collaboration between the Town, County, and residents.

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

Will Haynie: I do not because the intent of that would be to shift existing traffic from HWY 41 onto our neighborhood roads and that is not in the purpose statement of the HWY 41 improvement plan.

Curt Thomas: I do not support indiscriminate widening of Dunes West Boulevard or Park West Boulevard. Any potential widening must be based on comprehensive studies that consider traffic demand, safety, drainage, and environmental impacts, as well as the overall goals of the Town’s comprehensive plan.

If future studies show that limited widening or turn-lane improvements could ease bottlenecks without harming neighborhood character or the environment, I would be open to those targeted solutions. However, I would insist that any proposal be fully vetted through community meetings and expert review before any action is taken.

Alex Crosby: I do not support further widening of Dunes West Blvd or Park West Blvd.

Jenny DeSart: I believe in talking to the citizens that are most affected by these decisions. If the residents of Dunes West & Park West do not wish to have these roads widened, then I do not think they should be. If there is an alternative viable option proposed that includes this concept, then I would need to discuss this with the citizens of these communities prior to stating a firm response on this issue as they are the ones directly affected by it. From my understanding, this is currently a big no from the residents, so my current response is no.

Brianna Harmon: No

John Iacofano: At this time, I do not support future widening of Dunes West Boulevard or Park West Boulevard.

Our focus should be on smart traffic management and infrastructure optimization, not simply adding lanes. Before considering additional widening, we need to ensure that traffic light timing, turn lanes, and alternate route options are fully optimized. Expanding these roads could encourage more cut-through traffic and negatively impact neighborhood character.

Perry Rourk: I would be willing to explore the potential widening of Dunes West Boulevard from the Highway 41 (Dunes West Blvd / Rivertowne Parkway intersection) to the Bessemer Road roundabout, but only to address current traffic congestion in that area, not as an alternative route for Highway 41.

Craig Russack: I do not support widening Dunes West or Park West Blvd at this time.

Gary Santos: [No responses received]

Mike Tinkey: NO

Karthryn Whitaker: Not at this time. Widening alone is not a sustainable fix for congestion, as it often simply moves the bottleneck. Our focus should be on traffic-flow improvements, signal coordination, and the 17-41 intersection before additional widening is considered. AI models should be able to run large data sets and help us figure out a real solution for congestion on this road. Any proposal should include that full traffic analysis and resident input.

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?

Will Haynie: Absolutely not, and I made a point to speak against it at the DHEC public hearing at Wando High School in the summer of 2024 and I personally delivered Town Council’s resolution opposing it to Charleston County Council, incurring the verbal wrath of most of the County Council members.

Curt Thomas: I do not support routing a new connector road through Laurel Hill County Park unless all less impactful alternatives have been exhaustively evaluated and found unworkable. Parks and open spaces are essential to our community’s character, environmental health, and quality of life.

A road through Laurel Hill County Park could have significant negative effects on wetlands, wildlife, and recreational use. This option should only be considered an absolute last resort after full environmental and community review. My position is to protect parkland and preserve its public purpose whenever possible.

Alex Crosby: No, I do not support putting a road through Laurel Hill County Park.

Jenny DeSart: No. The town of Mount Pleasant has spoken. This is something that is not wanted.

Brianna Harmon: I do not support a road through Laurel Hill County Park. Cutting through a beautiful natural park is a sickening option and doing so still does not alleviate the traffic concerns.

John Iacofano: I do not support adding a new road through Laurel Hill County Park. That park is a community and environmental treasure that must remain preserved for public use and ecological protection. Once we open it to vehicle traffic, it will never be the same. Infrastructure solutions should not come at the cost of losing protected natural spaces.

Perry Rourk: I do not support any expansion proposal of Highway 41 that would put a road through Laurel Hill Park. The current plan for the proposed Laurel Hill Parkway would run adjacent to and duplicate Bessemer Road. I believe it would be more responsible to study adding turn lanes on Bessemer Road to improve accessibility, safety, and traffic flow for residents. The current plan also adds more than $40 million to the project cost, along with future maintenance expenses that would ultimately fall on Mount Pleasant taxpayers.

Craig Russack: I do not see a point in adding a road through a park if there is no evidence to support it will actually be an effective means to alleviate traffic flow.

Gary Santos: [No responses received]

Mike Tinkey: NO

Kathryn Whitaker: No. Laurel Hill County Park is a vital green space for Mount Pleasant residents, and cutting a new road through it would permanently alter that natural asset.

4) Mount Pleasant Town Council recently passed a resolution opposing Highway 41 expansion project and is now considering a measure that would withdraw municipal consent from the project. This would force Charleston County to either attempt taking of the land needed from the Town via eminent domain or a redesign of the “Road to Compromise.” Do you support the resolution? And if you are elected to Mount Pleasant Town Council would you support a measure to withdraw municipal consent?

Will Haynie: I have met with town legal counsel several times and as Chair of the Transportation Committee, chaired meetings at which it is discussed. The town attorney maintains that until local consent is granted, the County does not have it. According to counsel, the County must get permit approvals from the state and federal governments and then come ask the town for local consent. In his opinion, there is no need for a resolution opposing something the County does not yet have but must come ask the Town to grant.

Curt Thomas: I support the intent of the resolution in holding the County accountable and protecting the interests of Mount Pleasant residents. However, I believe our leadership should have been working more collaboratively with the County from the beginning. For nearly five years, there have been opportunities for dialogue and compromise that were not fully utilized. Now we find ourselves at a critical moment where withdrawing consent could delay the project further and potentially redirect the 60 million dollars in funding to another part of the county.

If elected, I would support keeping the resolution as a tool for negotiation but would not rush to withdraw consent. We should first exhaust every opportunity to work with Charleston County, SCDOT, and community leaders to refine the design and reach a fair, balanced solution.

As a former state trooper, I am acutely aware of how vital Highway 41 is to hurricane evacuation and public safety. Losing this funding or delaying this project due to slow action could put our community at risk when it matters most.

Alex Crosby: No, I do not and I would not withdraw municipal consent. The town of Mount Pleasant must be an active participant in the project.

**11/3/25: Candidate responded with the additional clarifying language: Yes, I do support municipal consent and if elected I believe the town of Mount Pleasant must be an active participant in the project.

Jenny DeSart: Yes, I support this resolution. Last night, I had a forum in which I expressed that I would not withdraw municipal consent as I was under the impression that they did not need consent because the SCDOT would not be doing the work. I believed if they would do it anyways, then we should not fracture our relationship any more than it already is.

Fortunately, thankfully, after this forum, I was able to have a discussion with people who are more educated in these areas and with citizens who are more involved in this area and realized that we can withdraw municipal consent and it WOULD make a difference, so yes, I would withdraw municipal consent. I do think it is important to communicate with Charleston County and make sure they understand our view point as well as keep a cordial working relationship with them as we will have to work together on so many things. My answer is a yes, I would withdraw municipal consent. Thank you for asking this question at the forum and allowing me to do some research and learn more about this area as I have not been asked this specific question before.

Brianna Harmon: I do support the resolution to oppose the expansion project. I would like to see the county do a re-design of the road to compromise and thus would support a measure to withdraw municipal consent if the plan is not in the best interest of Mount Pleasant residents.

John Iacofano: Yes — Daniel Brownstein and I asked for the item to be put on Town Council along with Jake Rambo’s support. I support the Town Council’s resolution opposing the current Highway 41 expansion plan, and I would support withdrawing municipal consent if necessary.

Withdrawal of consent isn’t about delay — it’s about demanding a fair, transparent process that puts residents first. The County must collaborate with the Town and community stakeholders to find a plan that addresses congestion while preserving Mount Pleasant’s neighborhoods, heritage, and green spaces. Mount Pleasant Town Council members defend Highway 41 vote.

If re-elected, I will champion withdrawing municipal consent from the Town of Mount Pleasant.

Many politicians will jump on this “hot topic” for votes — I’m one who will actually do

something about it.

Perry Rourke: I fully support Town Council’s resolution and attended the Charleston County Council meeting to show my support. If elected, I would also support a measure by Council to withdraw municipal consent.

Craig Russack: I do not have this resolution and can’t speak on whether I would or would not support it but I do not support giving up municipal consent to any outside entity. What happens in our Town should be controlled by our local government which should make decisions based on the will of the people who live here.

**11/3/25: Candidate responded with the additional clarifying language: Yes I support Mount Pleasant withdrawing municipal consent.

Gary Santos: [No responses received]

Mike Tinkey: Yes, I voted for the resolution. Yes.

Kathryn Whitaker: We need to be governing collaboratively, not combatively. I do not support withdrawing municipal consent. While I share the community’s concerns about the current proposal, pulling consent would have serious consequences for Mount Pleasant’s working relationship with Charleston County and could jeopardize other important infrastructure projects. It would be like throwing a grenade into that partnership, and that’s not how we should govern. Instead, we need to repair and strengthen our relationships with County officials and staff so we can work together toward a more balanced, transparent, and effective solution for Highway 41 and the region as a whole.

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.

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?

Will Haynie: I have had two face to face meetings with the Chairman of County Council recently advocating exactly that. The 4-3-4 design is workable and respectful of Phillips Community and would be every bit as effective without the Southern Parkway spur through the park. I took part in all of the stakeholder meetings prior to the County selecting Alternative 1, five lanes through Phillips, which they subsequently withdrew. I can personally vouch for the lack of transparency and public input as compared to the very long process that led up to Alternative 1 first becoming the preferred alternative.

Curt Thomas: Yes, I would support withdrawing or pausing the “Road to Compromise” proposal to ensure that all community-proposed alternatives are given fair and equal consideration. Every alternative should undergo the same level of technical study, environmental review, and public input that the original 12 options received.

A good process is essential for community trust. If residents feel excluded or ignored, the project will remain controversial no matter the outcome. I would support reopening the dialogue with County and state partners to refine or introduce new alternatives that better reflect the community’s input, safety needs, and smart growth principles.

Summary and Core Principles

As a mayoral candidate, I believe in smart growth, transparency, and collaboration. Our community deserves responsible planning that balances progress with preservation. I will work to:

Promote smart growth that prioritizes multi-modal, environmentally conscious solutions.
Ensure that residents of Park West, Dunes West, Phillips, and surrounding areas are active participants in shaping transportation projects.
Protect our parks, wetlands, and neighborhoods from unnecessary disruption.
Strengthen collaboration with Charleston County, SCDOT, and the Army Corps of Engineers so that Mount Pleasant has a proactive, not reactive, role in regional planning.
Safeguard our hurricane evacuation routes and public safety by keeping critical transportation funding in Mount Pleasant.

Mount Pleasant’s growth must be strategic, smart, and safe. That starts with open communication, early collaboration, and leadership that acts before opportunities are lost.

Alex Crosby: Yes, I would support new proposals to be considered and vetted.

Jenny DeSart: Yes, I would support the County withdrawing the “Road to Compromise” proposal that is currently being reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers to allow new proposals to be considered. I think a viable alternative that shows purpose and intent needs to be presented to avoid this one from happening. The most important input in these decisions should be from the residents who live around it, so they should be involved in the process and that is what my problem with this entire situation is. Citizen involvement should be the priority here.

Brianna Harmon: I would definitely support the county withdrawing the "Road to Compromise" proposal as residents made it very clear that this is not what we want or need. 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 funded this project via an increased sales tax to the county almost a decade ago and we are still no closer to a resolution. It is time for the county and town to work together and take action on this issue before it goes up another 100 million.

John Iacofano: Yes — I would support withdrawing the current “Road to Compromise” proposal so that new and better solutions can be properly evaluated through a fair and transparent process.

However, I want to be clear — I don’t want to lose the funding that has already been secured for

this project. We can and should move quickly and collaboratively toward a revised solution that

balances mobility, safety, and community preservation. I believe as council we should hold a

workshop and invite County Council and stakeholders to attend for open discussion and to work

toward an expedited solution.

Mount Pleasant residents deserve to be part of a true public process, but that doesn’t mean

starting over from scratch. I believe we can refine a solution that includes improvements to

Bessemer Road, intersection upgrades at 17 and 41, and the 4-3-4 configuration — all within a

reasonable timeline that keeps us eligible for funding.

We can protect our neighborhoods, honor community input, and still deliver meaningful traffic

relief without unnecessary delay. I will champion for the Agenda item in November to deny

municipal consent from the Town of Mt Pleasant. Many politicians will jump on this “hot topic”

item that gets votes, I’m one that will do something about it!

Perry Rourke: I fully support withdrawing the “Road to Compromise” proposal and conducting a full public vetting process for all viable alternatives.

Craig Russack: If I were to be elected I would prefer any plans with the scope of this project to be given plenty of time to be studied and understood by all parties involved prior to any vote. I ensure you, the people will have a say in what is being built in their backyards.

Gary Santos: [No responses received]

Mike Tinkey: Yes, recognizing the Hwy 41 project is a Charleston County funded project on a SC State Road requiring Federal approval and the Town’s leverage is limited.

The most recent 41 update from the County at the Transportation Committee states they are moving forward with their preferred alternative.

The town has continued to make improvements to finish road projects, add more infrastructure to enhance safety and ease congestion, and negotiate to ease congestion and improve safety on 41, including but not limited to the following, a number of which I voted for and worked on while on the Planning Commission and now on Town Council:

RiverTowne and 41
Town acquisition of the Republic Tract to reduce the planned development which has the potential of over 1,600 homes, septic tanks near the Wando River,41 and connecting roads.
The building of the Roundabout at Stockdale in Park West has been expedited with temporary traffic signals while under construction
Tupelo Development on Hwy 17 adding another access road and mitigating the impact of commercial development on the adjoining homeowners
All American Boulevard and expansion of Billy Swails Bpulevard.
Vauhn Kee Parkway
Studying where to add and stage a Rapid Response Vehicle with EMS staff and capability to handle injuries and move vehicles to clear traffic backups
Ongoing calibration and synchronization of traffic signals.
Adding turn lanes as indicated through traffic studies.
Expanding public transit.
Comprehensive Plan focus of smart and green redevelopment of areas like Mt Pleasant Town Centre for live, work, shop, and play in walkable and bikeable neighborhoods to reduce car traffic
Expansion of Mt. Pleasant Way
Expansion of neighborhood recreation options like Carolina Park Recreation Complex, Park West Pool renovation, the baseball field at Cario, the Rifle Range Recreation Complex, and more to keep traffic off 41 and 17.
Working with Berkeley County to reduce the impacts of their residential, commercial, and industrial development.

Thank you again for allowing me to participate in answering your questions. I am a 42-year-old resident, husband, father, and grandfather, small business owner, community leader, and Town Council member who works daily to keep our town unique and livable for all residents. I will protect Mt. Pleasant’s unique identity while merging preservation with progress to ensure our town remains an exceptional place to live,

Together, we can shape a stronger, greener, and more connected community in Mt. Pleasant

Kathryn Whitaker: Yes. The public deserves the same level of transparency, analysis, and participation that the original alternatives received.

Important Highway 41 Elections and Progress Updates [October 20, 2025]

With the November 2025 Town of Mount Pleasant elections fast approaching, Smart Growth 41 has compiled a candidate questionnaire and scorecard to help voters make informed decisions — especially when it comes to the future of Highway 41.

While the Highway 41 expansion is a Charleston County-led project, the Town of Mount Pleasant plays a critical role. The County depends on the Town for several forms of cooperation — including the granting of municipal consent and approval of project components within Town limits. That’s why it matters where our town leaders stand on this project.

Candidate Responses and Scorecard
We asked every candidate running for Mayor and Town Council to respond to a series of questions about the Highway 41 project and to share their views on the “Road to Compromise.” While Smart Growth 41 will not endorse candidates in this election, we encourage all residents to review our scorecard and their responses carefully.

In reviewing the candidate responses, we did want to flag to your attention those that have taken the additional step of attending public meetings — including those held by Charleston County Council — to raise concerns and speak on behalf of residents. This was specifically noted by candidates Will Haynie, John Iacofano, and Perry Rourk in their responses and we encourage you to dig deeper and learn about those specific actions.

Watch the Candidate Forum — Highway 41 Featured
Smart Growth 41 recently co-hosted a Town of Mount Pleasant candidate forum alongside Mount Pleasant Votes. The event was moderated by our chairman, Travis Korson, and covered a wide range of local issues, including Highway 41.

Click here to view a recording of the forum and to jump directly to the Highway 41 discussion

Don’t Fall for the County’s Spin — The Fight Is Not Over
Despite some recent reports, the Highway 41 project is not a done deal and construction is not imminent:

No permits have been granted by SCDHEC or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
A federal public comment period is still expected with the Army Corps of Engineers. This will include a public hearing and could take months to resolve.
The County has repeatedly missed its own deadlines throughout this process.
Critical concerns remain unanswered — including environmental impacts, regulatory compliance, and the destruction of publicly preserved green space.

The bottom line? County officials may want the public to believe this project is inevitable — but it is not. And voters deserve representatives who will not back down or accept half-truths as final answers.

Early Voting Starts Today

We encourage all residents of Mount Pleasant to make your voice heard by casting a ballot. Early voting opens today, Monday, October 20, and continues through Tuesday, November 4. You can check your registration, find polling places, and learn more at scvotes.gov.

Thank you for staying engaged — and for continuing to fight for smarter growth, better infrastructure, and a Highway 41 solution that works for all of Mount Pleasant.

July 14th Update: 🚨 Important Win in Mount Pleasant — Now Urge County Council to Act

Dear Supporters,

We have great news to share — and a critical opportunity to keep the momentum going in our fight against the Laurel Hill Parkway.

Last week, the Mount Pleasant Town Council voted overwhelmingly to pass a resolution formally opposing the Laurel Hill Parkway and made it clear that the Town stands united in its opposition to this unnecessary and harmful road. We are incredibly grateful to the Council for taking this strong stand, and to the many Smart Growth 41 supporters who filled the room, spoke during public comment, and helped deliver this powerful message.

Your voices are making a difference — and now, Charleston County Council is taking notice.

County Council to Consider Foregoing the Parkway — But They’re Not Ready to Act Yet

At its next Finance Committee meeting this Thursday, July 17, County Council will discuss the possibility of removing the Laurel Hill Parkway from the Highway 41 project.

However, this is currently only listed as a “discussion item” — which means Councilmembers won’t take immediate action. Instead, they could delay a vote for another 60 days, during which time the permitting process for the Parkway could move forward and momentum to stop the Laurel Hill Parkway could be lost.

That’s why we’re joining Councilmember Larry Kobrovsky on calling on the rest of County Council to make this an “action item” and vote now to remove the Parkway from the Highway 41 design.

How You Can Help

✅ 1. Email County Council Today

Tell Councilmembers that delaying this decision isn’t acceptable — and urge them to act now to remove the Laurel Hill Parkway from the project.

📧 Public-Comments@charlestoncounty.org

Suggested message:

“Thank you for taking time to consider alternatives to the Laurel Hill Parkway, but there is no longer any reason to delay this decision by making it a discussion item. Many members of the community have been speaking out against this road for years and I urge you to take immediate action and formally vote to remove the Parkway from the Highway 41 project.”

✅ 2. Attend the Finance Committee Meeting

Even though public comment is now allowed at the finance committee meeting, your presence matters. A strong turnout could help tip the balance and push County Council toward immediate action.

🗓 Thursday, July 17
⏰ 5:00 PM
📍 Charleston County Council Offices
4045 Bridge View Dr, North Charleston, SC 29405

Look for our Smart Growth 41 volunteers outside — we’ll be handing out stickers again to show unified support.

This Is Our Moment — Let’s Not Lose Momentum

The Town of Mount Pleasant took a clear stand. Residents are engaged and there is a real opportunity to change the course of this project.

But it won’t happen if County Council delays. Let’s make sure they hear loud and clear: we need action — not just more discussion.

Thank you for staying in the fight.

🚨 Action Alert – Mount Pleasant Town Council to Vote on Laurel Hill Parkway Resolution July 8, 2025

On Monday, June 30th, the Town of Mount Pleasant Transportation Committee voted unanimously (4-0) to advance a resolution that formally expresses the Town’s disapproval of the Laurel Hill Parkway portion of the Highway 41 project. Thank you to Councilmembers Daniel Brownstein and John Iacofano for advancing this resolution and to the Transportation Committee members for voting in favor of this resolution. This is a critical milestone that shows our voices are being heard. The resolution will now go before the full Mount Pleasant Town Council for a final vote on: Tuesday, July 8^th at 6:00 PM and we encourage you to attend this town council meeting to show your support.

Why This Matters

Building the Laurel Hill Parkway would cut through Laurel Hill County Park, destroy historic and natural resources, and negatively impact surrounding neighborhoods. It is an unnecessary and harmful segment of the Highway 41 expansion that fails to solve the corridor’s long-term traffic challenges in a sustainable way.

Additionally, Charleston County has already begun the process of acquiring right-of-way (ROW) to build the Parkway, including land currently owned by the Town of Mount Pleasant. By withholding municipal consent to sell or transfer this land, the Town could delay construction significantly – or even prevent the County from building the Laurel Hill Parkway altogether.

Finally, passing this resolution could directly influence the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services (DES) as it decides whether to issue the necessary state permits for the project. If DES denies its permit, the Army Corps of Engineers is very unlikely to approve theirs – effectively stopping this road from moving forward.

How You Can Help

✅ 1. Attend the Town Council Meeting
Your presence shows the Council that community opposition remains strong.
🗓 Tuesday, July 8th at 6:00 PM
📍 Mount Pleasant Town Hall, 100 Ann Edwards Ln

👉 Consider speaking in support of the resolution during public comment.
⚠️ Arrive early to sign up to speak – speaker sign-up typically closes before the meeting begins.

✅ 2. Email Town Council (if you haven’t yet)
Urge them to vote YES on the resolution opposing the Laurel Hill Parkway.
📧 councilclk@tompsc.com

This is a pivotal moment. Every email, every comment, and every person in the room makes a difference. Let’s ensure the Town of Mount Pleasant takes a strong stand against this harmful and unnecessary project.

Thank you for your continued dedication to protecting our community and advancing smarter solutions for Highway 41.

June 26, 2025 Update: Response to Recent County Updates — Take Action Now

Dear Supporters,

Many of you have likely heard about the Charleston County Finance Committee meeting held this past Tuesday, June 24th. During that meeting, a county representative claimed that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is expected to issue its notice of intent to issue a permit for the Highway 41 project within the next 60 days.

We want to set the record straight: Smart Growth 41 does not believe this statement accurately represents the facts on the ground. Based on everything Smart Growth 41 has learned, there are still many steps left in the permitting process — and the fight to stop this flawed project is very much still alive.

Why the County’s Timeline Doesn’t Add Up

Contrary to the impression given at the recent Finance Committee meeting and from what we understand, the Army Corps of Engineers cannot issue a permit until the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services (DES) completes its own permitting process. That process is still ongoing and far from resolved.

Here’s a detailed timeline of recent developments:

DES must issue its permit first.
Federal permitting by the Army Corps is contingent on DES competing its part of the permitting process. Without a decision from DES to approve or deny its permit, the Corps cannot proceed. Given the outstanding concerns and incomplete information submitted by the County, a decision from DES is not expected any time soon — and would be highly unlikely within the next 60 days.
Smart Growth 41 and State Representative Kathy Landing have been working closely with DES.
After DES held a public hearing last June at Wando High School, no updates were provided for months. In November, Rep. Landing contacted DES to request a status update and was told that DES had been delayed due to the complexity of the Laurel Hill Parkway segment and had not yet received all required information from Charleston County.
In February, Rep. Landing met with DES leadership in Columbia.
Rep. Landing met with the Director of DES and a staff member from DES who attended the June hearing. She received an update that DES was still waiting on technical responses from the County. Recognizing the importance of the project’s implications, the Director of DES agreed to travel to Charleston to conduct a site visit.
That site visit occurred in April.
DES leadership received a full briefing and toured the potentially impacted areas with Rep. Landing alongside Smart Growth 41 and representatives from neighboring communities. During the visit, DES shared the formal questions it had submitted to the County following public comments at last year’s hearing (read here), along with the County’s initial responses — many of which Smart Growth 41 found to be inadequate. As a result of that meeting, DES requested that we provide additional follow-up information to address ongoing concerns.
Following the visit, both Smart Growth 41 and Rep. Landing submitted formal letters to DES.
- Smart Growth 41 submitted a detailed environmental impact letter (read here).
- Rep. Landing submitted her own letter challenging the county’s traffic assumptions and outlining constituent concerns (read here).
These letters were submitted only in recent weeks.
DES is now reviewing this information that has been provided by Smart Growth 41 and Rep. Landing and from what we understand plans to submit a second round of questions for the County to respond to — a process that will likely take several more months, not weeks. Until that is complete, DES will not make a decision on its permit, and neither can the Army Corps.

Despite this reality, we have heard from some residents along the proposed route that the County has begun prematurely initiating Right-of-Way (ROW) acquisitions for the Laurel Hill Parkway segment — sending out official letters to landowners. We believe this is an irresponsible and inappropriate step given the unresolved permitting status.

If you or someone you know has received such a letter, please email us at info@smartgrowth41.org (and include a copy of your letter if possible) so we can work to determine the best way to respond.

🔧 Action Item: Support Mount Pleasant Town Council's Resolution

In response to these troubling developments, the Mount Pleasant Town Council is considering a resolution in the town Transportation Committee to officially oppose the Laurel Hill Parkway portion of the Highway 41 project. Mount Pleasant Town Councilmembers Daniel Brownstein and John Iacofano introduced the resolution and the request was approved by the chairman of the town Transportation Committee, Mayor Will Haynie.

This is a critical opportunity for those concerned about the current Highway 41 project design to have their voices heard and influence the project’s future. Here’s how you can help:

✅ Send an Email to Town Council
Tell them you support the resolution to oppose the Laurel Hill Parkway:
📧 councilclk@tompsc.com

📆 Attend Upcoming Meetings and Provide Comment in Support of the Resolution

Transportation Committee Meeting:
🗓️ Monday, June 30 at 1:15 PM
Full Town Council Meeting:
🗓️ Tuesday, July 8 at 6:00 PM
📍 Both meetings will be held at Mount Pleasant Town Hall, 100 Ann Edwards Ln, Mt Pleasant, SC 29464

📣 Contact Charleston County Council
Let them know you continue to oppose the “Road to Compromise”:
📧 public-comments@charlestoncounty.org

Passing this resolution is not only important symbolically — it could weigh heavily in DES’s final decision. If DES denies its permit, the Army Corps is very unlikely to issue a permit for the project, which would effectively block the project from moving forward.

The bottom line: the fight is not over. The permitting process is still underway, and there are still multiple points of leverage where we can stop this project from moving forward and harming our community.

Thank you for staying engaged and continuing to fight for a smarter, more sustainable solution for the Highway 41 corridor.

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.

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.

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.

Updated October 21, 2024

Vote "NO" on Charleston County Transportation Sales Tax

This election season residents of Charleston County will be presented with the opportunity to vote on a new ½ cent sales tax to fund transportation projects in the region. Smart Growth 41 encourages you to vote NO.

Approving these ballot questions would, in effect, allow for a continuation of the funding stream that is meant to pay for such projects as the failed “Road to Compromise” design for Highway 41 expansion. Smart Growth 41 continues to oppose this ill-conceived plan.

Until such time as the Charleston County Council abandons this flawed road design in favor of something better, we cannot be left with enough confidence that they will be good stewards of the additional $5.4 billion in taxpayer dollars they are requesting to raise through this referendum. While this is not the case for every current sitting member, the fact remains that the majority of the Council has simply done nothing to dispel our concerns that these additional funds will not be used to push similarly ill-conceived road projects.

Furthermore, Charleston County residents already face some of the highest sales tax rates in the country. According to analysis from the Tax Foundation the 9% sales tax rate that Charleston County residents pay is one of the highest sales tax burdens in the country. Charleston County residents are already taxed enough, and they certainly should not be forced to send more good dollars after bad road projects.

Early voting in South Carolina starts TODAY, Monday, October 21st and we encourage all supporters of Smart Growth 41 to vote NO on Charleston County Special Sales and Use Tax Question 1 and 2. For more information on voting dates, times, and locations, or to view a full sample ballot and check your voter registration status, please visit www.scvotes.gov.

Thank you for your continued support.

Updated: May, 2024

Click Here to Send Comments to The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

(This is a different comment request than from the summer of 2023)

Smart Growth 41 has just been notified that the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) has issued the updated Public Notice for rescheduled the Public Hearing regarding Charleston County’s application for the state required permits for Highway 41 project and proposed Laurel Hill Parkway.

You can read the updated permit application here:

https://epermweb.dhec.sc.gov/ncore/external/publicnotice/info/2153805530855226594/comments

The announcement now starts a comment period which will end on June 20th and where feedback can be provided. You can submit comment through the Smart Growth 41 portal by clicking below or by visiting the SC DHEC website directly. If you were one of the more than 500 people that previously submitted a comment to DHEC at the beginning of this year, there is no need to submit a new comment, as they will carry through. Continuing to gather comments in opposition to the project is important through, so if you have not already submitted a comment to DHEC this year, please stay do so before the deadline.

**Please click here to send written comments to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental control**

The in-person hearing will take place on Wednesday, June 5th at 6:00pm at Wando High School Performing Arts Center, 1000 Warrior Way, Mt Pleasant, SC 29466.

We are hoping to have a strong in-person showing at the public hearing, so please come if you can – even if you do not plan to make comments.

**Please click here to fill out the form if you plan to make comments at the public hearing**

While this DHEC coastal zone management permit public hearing is an important procedural step, it is completely separate from the not-yet-scheduled Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Hearing, which will serve as a far more significant procedural step in determining any final approvals for the Highway 41 project. At present, there is no indication that the Army Corps of Engineers is moving forward with a public meeting in the immediate future, but we still expect one to be announced at some point this summer/fall. Smart Growth 41 is monitoring this situation closely and will continue to provide additional updates to the community as things develop.

Background Information on the Upcoming Public Hearing

This permit application is a legally required procedural step by the state of South Carolina that must occur for the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to proceed with its ongoing internal and federal interagency approval or denial deliberations. Typically, this application runs concurrent with the ACOE review process, but it appears that the process has been delayed due to the extensive comments submitted after the ACOE issued its own public notice on June 9th, 2023. The June 5th, 2024 SC DHEC public hearing, is the State’s first public step in clearing their own separate procedural requirements.

The notice of the permit application does not indicate the status of the pending ACOE permit decision and serves as one of the only opportunities for the State to formally comment on the ACOE Application. Although the permits appear related, it is important to note that the State’s decision to issue or deny a permit under South Carolina’s Coastal Zone Management laws is separate and exclusive from the entirely different set of more stringent federal rules and criteria for approval that the ACOE process must follow.

Issuance or denial of the permit by SC DHEC merely serves as the official State comment, required to complete one of the numerous other sections in the administrative record the ACOE must fulfill before moving forward with permit decisions. Additional comments from State Historic Preservation Office, and federal agencies such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Transportation, and comment at a public hearing are also likely to be sought before a decision is made on the Army Corps of Engineers permit application.

Click Here to Send Comments to The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

Smart Growth 41 is a coalition of citizens working to advance the best transportation solution for the Highway 41 expansion in Charleston County.

Our Primary Concerns are with

Identifying The Best Travel Solution

The “Road to Compromise” proposal does not address traffic in the neighborhoods it plans to bisect. It also is a poor solution considering the estimated 18,000 home units being built in Berkley County which will use Highway 41.

Child & Pedestrian Safety

The “Road to Compromise” proposal poses a safety risk by routing highway traffic into neighborhood streets and posing a safety risk to pedestrians and cyclists.

Severe Environmental Loss

A massive area of forest and marshland will be lost forever if the “Road to Compromise” is built.

Cost to The Taxpayer

"The Road to Compromise" will cost $23 million more than what was originally budgeted for Highway 41 expansion. This shortfall will likely need to be covered by higher taxes or by redirecting funds from other County transportation projects.

Click to Voice Your Opinion to Officials

The Facts

The “Road to Compromise” proposal would be $23 million more expensive than what was originally budgeted for this project, more adversely affect the surrounding environment, and fail to address the future growth needs of our region.

The Facts

For over five years Charleston County has been working to identify a solution to alleviate the current and worsening traffic problems on Highway 41. After an extensive study period it was determined that Alternative 1, widening the existing Highway 41 right-of-way, was the most practical and effective transportation solution to alleviate area traffic issues and accommodate future growth in the region. It would accomplish this goal at the lowest cost to the taxpayer and with the smallest environmental impact.

Along the way several misconceptions developed regarding the preferred Alternative 1 solution. Charleston County is now in the process of revisiting a modified version of the previously rejected Alternative 7 proposal to widen Highway 41. Colloquially known as the “Road to Compromise”, it would be $23 million more expensive than what was originally budgeted for this project, more adversely affect the surrounding environment, and fail to address the future growth needs of our region.

Smart Growth 41 was created to dispel this confusion surrounding the expansion of Highway 41 and to find the solution that would have the lowest cost and greatest benefit to Charleston County. At the start of this process several evaluation criteria were established to determine which proposed expansion of Highway 41 would best meet the project need. The leadership of Charleston County should lean on this scorecard and adopt a facts-based approach when determining their final design for this project.

Click to Say "No" to $23 Million in Increased Costs

Environmental Impact

The "Road to Compromise" will destroy a large section of park forest, disrupting wildlife permanently.

Hawks, Alligators, Turkey, Deer, Ducks, Cranes, Heron, Coyotes, Wild Cats, and more will lose their territory and very likely their ability to survive.

These photos were taken of wildlife living in the forest that would be impacted by the new highway

The below drone footage shows the area of Charleston county forest that will be destroyed for The "Road to compromise".

In fact, our drone range wasn't far enough to show the entire path of deforestation.

The map below shows the new Laurel Hill Parkway path through the
forest wetlands and skirting neighborhoods in Park West.

Click to Defend Charleston's Wildlife

Child and Pedestrian Safety

Child & Pedestrian Safety

The “Road to Compomise” will route highway traffic through a congested pedestrian area with walkers, joggers, bicyclists, and young children that has previously experienced tragic accidents. Dramatically increasing the number of vehicles driving through this area will greatly increase the potential and probability for more accidents involving pedestrians.

School Children Hit by Cars

The proposed extension splits 2 neighborhoods, and will force families to regularly cross a four lane highway to access public schools, child care, parks, and amenities, causing a safety hazard.

In Park West alone, there have been 2 publicized accidents where children using the crosswalk have been hit by a vehicle, despite numerous safety measures such as a crossing guard and flashing warning lights.

Read the ABC News 4 Report Here

“All of the cars had stopped on both sides and then when she started to go out, this truck just came around from nowhere and hit her,” said Rogge. “When the truck hit her, her whole body went flying over to that side in the air. She had a fractured skull and she had road rash all over her, she had stitches all up in her mouth, she was in the hospital for three days”

Demand Local Officials Care for Our Kids

Increased Traffic Volume equals higher rates of pedestrian incidents

Rerouting existing highway traffic through more densely populated neighborhoods could increase the scale of traffic incidents involving pedestrians. Current traffic models estimate that 7,800 cars per day take a trip through these neighborhoods, but if the "Road to Compromise" is advanced, that is estimated to increase to 23,800 trips by 2040.

The "Road to Compromise" negatively impacts the safety of the 606 dwellings off of Dune West Boulevard, as well the 1782 dwellings in Park West (the two neighborhoods that would be most affected by this project). Bicyclists and young children have already been hit at crosswalks this year in the direct path of the new proposal as reported on the NextDoor app (April and June) [Click to read more] and that will likely increase if more traffic is routed through these neighborhoods.

Why Take The Risk?

Ask Lawmakers to Protect Pedestrians

Common Misconceptions

The #1 misconception is home displacement. No Homes would be displaced in the Alternative 1 plan.

Myth: The "Road to Compromise" is a new proposal to Highway 41.

Fact: The "Road to Compromise" is a slightly modified version of Alternative 7, a previously considering proposal to widen Highway 41. Alternative 7 was rejected due to the higher costs, more significant environmental impacts, and longer drive times associated with the plan as well as its failure to address the future growth needs of the region.

Myth: The previously approved Alternative 1 plan for Highway 41 has been revisited because of concerns that additional land would need to be acquired and homes would be taken in order to complete the project.

Fact: Existing right of way is sufficient to complete the Alternative 1 proposal for Highway 41 without any additional improvements provisioned for by the county. Only 15 feet of additional right of way on each side of the proposed corridor would be required in order to move forward with the previously approved and recommended plan to widen the existing Highway 41 Route. This additional right of way would not be used for travel lanes, but instead would be used to create a center turn lane requested by the communities located along the Highway 41 corridor as well as a landscaped sidewalk and recreational path.

Myth: The new “Road to Compromise” proposal for widening Highway 41 will not be any more expensive than what was previously budgeted for Highway 41 expansion.

Fact: The “Road to Compromise” will cost almost $30 million more than what was originally budgeted to expand Highway 41. To cover this shortfall some combination of additional tax revenues and budget cuts to other important programs and transportation initiatives will need to likely need to be enacted.

Myth: The "Road to Compromise" is the most environmentally sound solution to widen Highway 41.

Fact:

The rationale previously used for selecting Alternative 1 over Alternative 7 (a plan similar to the “Road to Compromise” that was previously rejected) was sound, thorough and compelling in virtually every measurable category of the NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act) analysis. Alternative 7 was inferior to Alternative 1 in almost every category defined in the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process. The “Road to Compromise” does not seem to address or improve any of the well documented detrimental aspects of Alternative 7 including:

A larger construction footprint
The creation of a new major drainage system which will displace hundred of millions of gallons of road runoff into pristine rivers and marshes
Major environmental disturbances to Laurel Hill County Park
Increases in automobile pollution due to longer travel times for drivers

Myth: Highway 41 needs to be widened to account for additional traffic from Dunes West and Park West as there are still several thousand houses left to be built out in both communities.

Fact: Construction of new houses in Dunes West and Park West is nearly complete. There are less than 100 houses to be built out between the two communities. This lessens the feasibility of reducing Highway 41 from four to three lanes at the entrance to these communities, as the additional traffic traveling on Highway 41 will mostly be due to development in Berkeley County. The estimate for new homes leading from 41 in Berkley County is now 18,000 units.

Myth: There are already plans in place to widen Dunes West Boulevard within the next 5 years. The “Road to Compromise” proposal provides an opportunity to further leverage already planned infrastructure improvements

Fact:

The Town of Mount Pleasant, which has jurisdiction over Dunes West Boulevard has no immediate plans to expand the road. In fact, the widening of Dunes West Boulevard is not even included in the Town of Mount Pleasant’s long term capital improvement plan. Widening the road as future improvement as part of the “Road to Compromise” would be an additional logistical and fiscal factor that would need to be taken under consideration.

Ask Your Reps for a Safer, Cost Effective, Environmentally Concious, & Efficient Transportation Solution

Click Here to Make Your Voice Heard

Win-Wins for All Communities

Workable solutions have been discussed by neighborhood leaders from a variety of communities along Highway 41. These solutions avoid encroachment into neighborhoods, enhance historic preservation & awareness, avoid devastating environmental destruction, increase pedestrian safety, and address future high volume travel coming from Berkeley County. Click here to read about one such proposal and dialogue.

Ask County Council for a Win-Win!