By Bob Bouyea

Two different road projects, two different approaches to funding them.

One project is a proposal to move Interstate 26 to the east toward the Cooper River and lower it to ground level in the Charleston Neck area. The other project is to build an access road from the proposed South Carolina State Ports Authority facility at the old Navy base to I-26.

All say both projects are needed. But a feasibility study must first be done to determine whether the possibility of moving I-26 is, well, feasible. The cost of this study is expected to be $150,000, a small amount compared to the actual cost of a project like this. The state should finance this study to see if moving the interstate makes sense.

If it does, like some suspect, then the debate is how to fund these projects.

Some say that they should be looked at as a whole to reduce the state’s burden, which could be as much as five times greater. Others say tying them together would hinder the development of the port.

In the movie Philadelphia the attorney played by Denzel Washington was notorious for asking witnesses to explain issues to him as though he were a 6-year-old.

Pardon me while I steal that line because someone has to explain to me as though I’m a 6-year-old why we wouldn’t want to tie together these two projects. 

The worst-case scenario puts the cost of the access road alone for the cash-strapped state at roughly $250 million to $300 million. However, tying the access road and the I-26 road projects together would cost the state less than building just the access road because it would allow us to leverage federal funding.

However, Mary Graham, vice president of public policy for the Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce, says moving I-26 needs to be studied but not tied to the access road. Why? Because the SPA and Army Corps of Engineers have already agreed on the scope of the work for the environmental impact study and “the risk that adding any other elements could derail the process is too great right now.”

The problem with that is the earliest date a permit could be issued to the SPA to begin work is in August 2006. And a best-case scenario is the port will be completed in 2008, possible but not probable, some say. Another problem is state Rep. Bobby Harrell R-Charleston says if federal funds aren’t available to help build the access road then it’s most likely not happening. (See story page 8.)

Let’s look at these projects as consumers. First, we know that the portion of I-26 in question is obsolete and there is no way to add more lanes to the raised section of the roadway to handle increased traffic as the Charleston area grows.

Second, we know that eventually the SPA will have a facility at the old Navy base and an access road will be needed for it and the other industry in the area. This too will be needed to handle the increased truck traffic.

The question then becomes, “Do we use money that has been earmarked for such projects or do we take on more debt?” or, “Do we do nothing because it is too costly?”

The latter is not an option in regard to the access road. Instead of billing the state for the cost of an access road it can’t afford, it makes sense to go after some of our federal tax dollars that would otherwise end up in someone else’s road project, and finance the cost of both projects.

The good news is that there already is support for getting more of our federal tax dollars returned for Lowcountry projects. During the Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce’s March 24 regional economic outlook conference, South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint said he supports getting a larger percentage of the tax dollars we send to Washington, D.C. sent back to the state to use improving our roads and other infrastructure needs.

We all benefit in the end from a better transportation system.

SUBSCRIBE | REPRINTS | CONTACT US

Phone: 843-849-3100    Fax: 843-849-3122