boundary street improvements - beaufort countythe focus of this study is the feasibility of...

Boundary Street ImprovementsFeasibility Study

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

April 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 SURVEYS CONDUCTED ............................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Aerial/Property/Topographic Surveys ....................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Geotechnical Investigations ........................................................................................ 2-1

2.3 Subsurface Utility Engineering Investigation ........................................................ 2-2

2.4 Wetland/Coastal Critical Area Delineation ........................................................... 2-2

3.0 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND ANALYSIS ............................................................. 3-1

3.1 Inventory ........................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.2 Existing Condition Observations ....................................................................... 3-1

3.1.3 Crash Analysis ....................................................................................................... 3-2

3.2 Projected 2030 Traffic Volumes ................................................................................. 3-4

3.3 Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 3-4

3.3.1 Evaluation of Existing and Proposed Road Geometry ................................. 3-4

3.3.2 Arterial Analysis ..................................................................................................... 3-7

3.3.3 Roundabout Analysis ............................................................................................ 3-7

3.3.4 Parallel Street Analysis ........................................................................................ 3-9

3.3.5 Frontage Street Analysis ..................................................................................... 3-9

4.0 PUBLIC INFORMATION AND OUTREACH .......................................................... 4-1

4.1 Purpose of Engagement ................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Terms ................................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.3 Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................... 4-2

4.4 Issues of Interest ............................................................................................................ 4-2

4.5 Communications Strategies ........................................................................................ 4-3

4.6 Stakeholder Engagement Action Steps .................................................................... 4-4

5.0 CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS ................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 Design Criteria .................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Typical Sections .............................................................................................................. 5-2

5.3 Alternative Designs ......................................................................................................... 5-3

5.4 Roundabout...................................................................................................................... 5-5

5.5 Streetscape Design .......................................................................................................... 5-6

5.6 Utility Evaluation and Coordination ......................................................................... 5-6

5.7 Design Matrixes ............................................................................................................... 5-7

5.8 Boundary Street Design Exception ............................................................................. 5-7

5.9 Recommended Improvements ..................................................................................... 5-8

5.10 Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................... 5-8

5.11 Recommended Phasing ................................................................................................. 5-9

APPENDIX 1 - DESIGN PLANS

APPENDIX 2 - PROJECT MEETINGS

APPENDIX 3 - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

APPENDIX 4 - BOUNDARY STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT

APPENDIX 5 - MISCELLANEOUS DESIGN ELEMENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYAfter an open and innovative planning process followed by surveys, engineering studies, and preliminary

design, the transformation of Boundary Street is moving toward an important milestone in 2009 —

detailed design and construction plans. The program initially will include construction of an improved

Boundary Street with an enhanced streetscape. The consensus objective is to create a street that provides

safe and efficient traffic flow and bicycle travel; easy access to businesses by car, emergency vehicle, truck,

bike, and on foot; and a framework to support new development. The finished product will be a whole

new look for Boundary Street — a destination rather than a through street.

The Boundary Street Improvements project includes the following features:Eliminate traffic signals at the Ribaut Road intersection, and replace them with a modern

roundabout

Build a median to preclude left turns, except at specially designed median openings and

intersections

Reconstruct the skewed intersection at Robert Smalls Parkway and Boundary Street

Add up to three signalized intersections as conditions change and cross traffic volume increases

Continue to provide two through lanes in each direction on Boundary Street, with additional

approach lanes at key intersections

Widen sidewalks throughout the corridor

Install bike lanes and a pathway to be shared by bicyclists and pedestrians

Build highly visible crosswalks

Relocate utilities

Plant more street trees

Install pedestrian-scale streetscape features, including sidewalk pavement detailing, plants, period

lamps, benches, and wayfinding signs

Synchronize traffic signals and provide pedestrian features

Study AreaThe focus of this study is the feasibility of transportation-based changes shown in the Study Area Figure

and bullets below:

Boundary Street between Neil Road and Palmetto Street (about 1.4 miles)

Existing Polk Street (about 0.3 miles)

Polk Street extended westerly past Palmetto Drive, curving around to intersect Boundary Street

near the KFC restaurant (about 0.1 mile)

Burnside Drive extended westerly through the Beaufort Town Center and Carolina Cove

Condominium parking lots to Hogarth Street (about 0.6 miles)

Frontage Street for westbound traffic, to be built on the north side of Boundary Street, between

Beaufort Town Center Drive and the vicinity of Pickpocket Plantation Drive (about 0.6 miles)

1.0 INTRODUCTIONLocal, regional and global economic changes require constant efforts

to maintain competitiveness so that citizens will retain jobs and

reasonable opportunities to enhance the quality of their lives. In the

current economic correction, communities that provide high levels of

amenities desired by citizens fare better, retaining market value and

attracting new residents and businesses. Charlotte, North Carolina

Mayor Pat McCrory said, “Cities are either growing or dying, and I

prefer the former.”

The City of Beaufort, South Carolina planned for positive change on

Boundary Street by commissioning a master plan to guide

development of the Boundary Street corridor, and enacting new

zoning ordinances to encourage private property redevelopment

along the corridor consistent with the master plan.

The Boundary Street Master Plan was developed during 2005-2006

as a comprehensive strategy for growth and organized redevelopment

of the Boundary Street corridor. An

excerpt from the Master Plan

describes the area as follows:

“The Boundary Street corridor serves

as an essential element in the regional road network, yet the design

and physical form characterizes the roadway as a suburban arterial; a

poor demonstration of Beaufort's overall character and charm. A

comprehensive strategy for the future of this important corridor is

needed to address the physical form and redevelopment of the

corridor, as well as its ability to handle continued traffic capacity.”

Principles of the plan include the following:

Promote interconnectivity, including a parallel street system

Create traffic capacity, safety, and character

Plan for feasible, “phase-able” pieces

Make Boundary Street a walkable “great street”

Grow a mix of uses and housing types

Assemble a green network, and link marsh views

Create a memorable entrance to town

The City adopted the plan and relevant zoning ordinances in 2006. In

a 2006 bond referendum, the City and Beaufort County asked voters

to approve funds to reconstruct Boundary Street and a parallel street.

With passage of the referendum, the County committed $22 million

toward planning, design, and

construction of those projects.

Using funding from Beaufort

County's one-cent sales tax and

traffic impact fees, the County retained Kimley-Horn and Associates,

Inc. to further the planning

The only constant is change.

- Anonymous

Introduction

1-1

effort and to prepare engineering drawings of Boundary Street, the access street, and the parallel street as

proposed in the Master Plan. Documented in this report, the planning effort (feasibility study phase)

included surveys of property, topography, underground utilities, and geotechnical conditions; traffic

analysis; stakeholder and

public meetings; preparation of

preliminary engineering plans;

opinions of probable

construction and right-of-way

cost; and prioritization of

specific items within the

project. This phase will be

followed by detailed

engineering design so

contractors’ bids may be

obtained.

The approach to the planning

and engineering design for this

project is to follow the intent of the Master Plan and explore any changes necessary to meet new

regulations, obtain environmental permits, and respond to significant increases in the cost of construction.

Phasing of the various elements of the plan provides the opportunity to build the functional elements of

the plan within the budget, thereby improving safety and operations as well as providing the framework

for significant private investment in the corridor.

Three roadway sections proposed in the Master Plan and included in this planning study are described

below.

1) Boundary Street

Bury utility wires, widen the street to provide facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists, build and landscape

a raised median, install streetscape features, and replace the traffic signals with a modern roundabout at

the intersection of Ribaut Road/Boundary Street.

Objective: Utilize the existing 80-foot right-of-way (ROW) to the extent feasible and thus spend more of

the available funds on elements that make the roadway corridor safer for all users and more aesthetically

pleasing. The finished Boundary Street is expected to promote further redevelopment along Boundary

Street and the parallel street. Based on Kimley-Horn’s recommendation, a 16-foot expansion of ROW is

necessary to fulfill these objectives; that is, an additional 12 feet on the north side and another 4 feet on the

south side of existing Boundary Street ROW. (No additional ROW is to be acquired in the vicinity of 16

Gate Cemetery.)

2) Access Street

Evaluate and design a one-way westbound-only street adjacent to and north of Boundary Street. The street

will have intermittent access points connecting it with Boundary Street, to serve business driveways and

on-street parking. Curb and gutter will separate parked cars from pedestrians walking on a wide

sidewalk. Streetscape features along the access street will be important components of the design.

Objective: Minimize driveway locations on the north side of Boundary Street, and pull local traffic off

westbound Boundary Street. On-street parking will be provided and a more pedestrian-friendly zone will

be created to spur redevelopment fronting Boundary Street.

3) Parallel Street

Design a new 2-lane street — with parking and sidewalks on both sides— that runs parallel to Boundary

Street and ties back into the existing street network in Beaufort Town Center west of Ribaut Road and

Introduction

1-2

intermittently via cross streets leading to and from Boundary Street. The west end of

the parallel street will connect to existing Polk Street and extend to Palmetto Drive

and ultimately to Boundary Street.

Objective: Create a parallel roadway for two-way local traffic that provides a more

walkable environment, access to new and existing businesses and neighborhoods, and

an alternative to Boundary Street for local traffic.

This report summarizes the process and findings of the planning study. Because the

feasibility of the proposed roadway and streetscape elements for each section had not

been determined at the initiation of this study, elements of each section were evaluated

and refined as necessary during the course of the planning and design process.

Discussions of the feasibility of Master Plan recommendations are included, along with

current opinions of the cost for right-of-way (including business displacements and

damages) and the cost of construction. Several changes from the Master Plan are

recommended to strike a balance between managing traffic speeds and delays and

providing more inviting places for people to walk and bicycle along and across

Boundary Street and environs.

Kimley-Horn recommends the following changes to the Boundary Street Master Plan

recommendations:

Rebuild the northern end of Robert Smalls Parkway to intersect Boundary Street at a

safer angle (90 degrees) as recommended in the Master Plan but use a traffic signal

instead of the roundabout recommended in the Master Plan. Updated traffic studies

show a roundabout—even a very large one—would result in unacceptable delays to

motorists. Build the access street/Boundary Street intersections with turn restrictions

so that motorists and pedestrians aren’t confused. Classic multi-way boulevards suffer

from congestion, leading to confusion at intersections along the access roads. Kimley-

Horn recommends avoiding these situations by using the updated design techniques

described herein.

Delay installation of some traffic signals at intersections that currently are not

signalized until the signals are warranted. Revise the alignment of the parallel street

based on current conditions and the stated desires of affected property owners.

Change the typical section of the improvements to minimize impacts to businesses and

sensitive wetlands while remaining consistent with the vision of the Master Plan.

Introduction

1-3

Surveys Conducted

2-1

2.0 SURVEYS CONDUCTEDThe Boundary Street Improvements project required various surveys to evaluate the corridor. The surveys

conducted included:

Aerial surveys

Ground surveys

Geotechnical investigations

Subsurface utility engineering investigation

Wetland/Coastal critical area delineation

2.1 Aerial/Property/Topographic Surveys

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. retained Andrews & Burgess, Inc. in Beaufort, SC to conduct surveying

operations for the project, including aerial photography, topographic mapping, ground surveys, and

property surveys. Carolina Resource Mapping, located in Wilmington, NC, assisted Andrews & Burgess

with the aerial photography.

Ground Surveys were acquired along the Boundary Street corridor from the Boundary Street/Neil Road

intersection to approximately 500 feet past the Boundary Street/Palmetto Street intersection. The surveys

extended south on Robert Smalls Parkway to the Neil Road intersection, south on Ribaut Road to the

Baggett Street intersection, and encompassed the area north of Boundary Street. They varied in width

from approximately 300 feet near Polk Street to 900 feet near Beaufort Town Center, from the existing

Boundary Street right-of-way. Surveys included, but were not limited to, curbing, sidewalks, structures,

trees, pavement markings, aboveground utility structures and locations, etc. Property owners and

corresponding deed information were provided for each parcel in the study area (see survey limits map

below).

2.2 Geotechnical Investigations

Geotechnical services for the project were provided by WPC Engineering in Mt. Pleasant, SC.

Geotechnical investigations were performed on Boundary Street, Robert Smalls Parkway, and Ribaut

Road within the previously described survey boundary. No geotechnical work was performed for the

proposed parallel street due to its unknown location. The geotechnical report discusses subsurface

Surveys Conducted

2-2

conditions encountered and presents recommendations for site preparation, pavement design, and other

conditions that may affect proposed construction. Soil tests were conducted, and pavement cores were

sampled to determine the condition of the existing asphalt. Based on the report, some areas of undercut

will be needed to stabilize the subgrade, while other areas existing subgrade may be maintained or

reworked. Upon evaluation of the existing pavement, it was determined that full-depth removal and

replacement will be necessary in some areas, while the majority of the project can be overlaid with an

additional layer of asphalt pavement. In addition, the finding from one of the borings indicated the

presence of a petroleum product. Additional borings were

taken in this area, and the results were analyzed by an

independent testing agency. The results of the testing

were reported to the City, County, and South Carolina

Department of Health and Environmental Control

(SCDHEC). The geotechnical scope of work, final report,

and petroleum test results are located in Appendix 5.

2.3 Subsurface Utility EngineeringInvestigation

The subsurface utility engineering (SUE) investigation

was performed by GEL Geophysics, LLC, located in Mt.

Pleasant, SC. The SUE investigation (Quality Level B)

was performed on Boundary Street, the proposed frontage

street, Robert Smalls Parkway, and Ribaut Road within

the previously described survey boundary. No SUE work

was performed for the proposed parallel street due to its

unknown location. The findings/geophysical utility

designations were integrated into the Microstation survey files provided by Andrews & Burgess. The SUE

and findings are included in the Design Plans and located in Appendix 1.

2.4 Wetland/Coastal Critical Area Delineation

Kimley-Horn staff evaluated the project area to identify jurisdictional streams and wetlands, and

coordinated with Andrews & Burgess to survey these jurisdictional boundaries as part of the ground

survey mapping. The mapped wetlands then were presented to South Carolina Department of Health and

Environmental Control – Ocean & Coastal Resource

Management SCDHEC-ORCM (Geordie Madlinger) to

determine whether the mapped wetlands also were considered

coastal critical areas.

No streams were identified within the project area. All

identified wetlands are located along the southern boundary of

the project where Boundary Street is adjacent to a large tidal

saltwater marsh. OCRM agreed that the mapped wetland

boundaries along the marsh also are the coastal critical area

limits.

A review with the US Army Corps of Engineers will be

conducted once further design details are available (during final

design phase) to discuss an appropriate permitting approach. It

may be feasible to entirely avoid impacts to jurisdictional areas,

and in that case, a Section 404 permit would not be necessary.

Traffic Engineering and Analysis

3-4

3.0 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND ANALYSISThe Boundary Street Master Plan “provides for the organized redevelopment of the corridor that will

handle the movement of automobiles while also providing a memorable civic space representative of the

character of Beaufort.” As part of the feasibility phase of the improvements design, the Boundary Street

Master Plan was evaluated from a traffic operations perspective for existing and projected (2030) traffic

conditions. The 2030 traffic conditions include projected traffic from regional growth as well as from the

additional development recommended in the Master Plan. The no-build analysis includes all the 2030

projected traffic with existing roadway geometry. The build analysis evaluates the Boundary Street

Master Plan concepts regarding changes to the corridor, including the following items:

Median on Boundary Street with openings only at major intersections

Parallel street north of Boundary Street (Polk Street/Burnside Street)

One-way Frontage Street on the north side of Boundary Street

Roundabout at Robert Smalls Parkway and Ribaut Road

Other measures that would improve traffic operations, capacity, and safety

This chapter evaluates the above items and recommends changes that can better accommodate projected

traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service (LOS), while staying within the character of the

improvements proposed by the Boundary Street Master Plan. The recommendations include access

management measures (medians with full or directional openings and limited curb cuts) as well as lane

modifications. Details of the traffic analysis are included in the Traffic Analysis Report located in

Appendix 4 and accompanying CD.

3.1 Inventory

The current roadway configuration of Boundary Street is a suburban arterial design featuring four 12-foot

lanes of traffic with a two-way left-turn lane, occasional medians, no on-street parking, and a 40-mph

speed limit throughout the majority of the study corridor. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of

Boundary Street. The 1.2-mile corridor is controlled by five traffic signals, which generally provide

acceptable traffic operations but offer limited crossing opportunities for pedestrians. In some of the longer

sections of Boundary Street between signalized intersections, pedestrians have been observed crossing this

5-lane arterial in the middle of a block without the protection provided by traffic signals. Bicycling is

fairly common along Boundary Street; however, the lack of bicycle lanes discourages cyclists from riding in

the street. Cyclists often ride on the sidewalks or even in the center median. While using sidewalks may

appear safer than riding in the street, national safety studies report a concern for cyclist safety when

motorists approach a main street from a side street or driveway and do not see bicyclists approaching on

the sidewalk. To address these concerns, the Boundary Street Master Plan provides for the organized

redevelopment of the corridor that will handle the movement of pedestrians and bicyclists as well as

automobiles.

Morning and afternoon peak-hour counts for pedestrians, bicyclists, passenger cars, and trucks were

performed at the following intersections. All counts were performed by Traffic Data Connection, Inc.

Mid-day (lunchtime) counts were conducted for vehicular traffic.


3-5

Boundary Street

Boundary Street at Neil Road

Boundary Street at Robert Smalls Parkway (SC 170)/Palmetto Drive

Boundary Street at Polk Street/Beaufort Plaza Driveway

Boundary Street at Pickpocket Plantation Dive

Boundary Street at Hogarth Street

Boundary Street at K-Mart entrance

Boundary Street at Beaufort Town Center Main Drive

Boundary Street at Greenlawn Drive

Boundary Street at Marsh Road

Boundary Street at Ribaut Road (US 21)

Boundary Street at Palmetto Street

Robert Smalls Parkway (SC 170)

Robert Smalls Parkway (SC 170) at Salem Road

Robert Smalls Parkway (SC 170) at Neil Road

In addition, a vehicle classification count on Boundary Street was conducted on November 5 and

November 6, 2008 in the central portion of the study corridor. These counts indicated that 7.6% of the

vehicles were trucks, confirming the 7% SCDOT 2007 estimate. According to the SCDOT classification

guidelines, trucks include both single-unit and multiple-unit commercial vehicles, including 2-axle, 6-tire,

single-unit vehicles. Only about 3% of the vehicles counted were multiple-unit trucks, and less than 1%

were tractor-trailer/semi-trailer “18-wheelers.”

Pedestrian counts show more walking activity in the late afternoon than in the morning commuter period.

The highest volume of pedestrians crossing and walking along Boundary Street occurred between

Greenlawn Drive and Palmetto Street. The great majority of pedestrians were observed to cross Boundary

Street legally; that is, at intersections.

Many bicyclists were observed as pedestrians during the AM and PM peak periods, and all but one rode

on the sidewalk. At many driveway intersections with Boundary Street, motorists must pull forward to

look for gaps in traffic, thus blocking the path of pedestrians and cyclists on the sidewalk.

Travel times on Boundary Street were observed by driving in the right lane at the prevailing speeds set by

traffic ahead and behind the study vehicle. Stop time at intersections and other traffic-related delays were

included. The results show a range of 2.75 to 3.1 minutes, or an average speed of about 25 miles per hour.

The following paragraphs summarize the results of the crash history review for crashes on Boundary Street

or on the connecting side streets within 500 feet of Boundary Street. Crashes were obtained from the City

of Beaufort Police Department.

This analysis consisted of reviewing historical crash data and traffic volume counts to identify the highest

crash occurrence locations along the corridor. The analysis included a review of causational factors to

determine accident patterns. Crashes were analyzed at intersection and mid-block locations. Summaries

of these crashes are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. In total, there were 880 crashes during the three-year

analysis period. Four hundred sixty-five (465) crashes occurred at the intersection along the study

corridor, while 415 additional crashes occurred along the mid-block sections between intersections.

The crash rate for Boundary Street between Neil Road and Palmetto Street was 18.60 crashes per million

vehicle miles, based on the analysis of crashes between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007. The best

available data for comparison was compiled by the North Carolina Department of Transportation

(NCDOT) for all multi-lane urban US highways in North Carolina with two-way left-turn lanes. NCDOT


3-6

reports a crash rate of 32.86 crashes per million

vehicle miles for these roadway segments between

2003 and 2005. (SCDOT data on average crash rates

by facility type were not available.)

In general, research indicates improved safety for

median-divided roadways as compared to 5-lane

roadways. According to the National Cooperative

Highway Research Program (NCHRP)1, crash rate

reductions range from 0.5 to 1 crash per million

vehicle miles based on the number of access points.

For roadway segments with more than 60 access

points per mile, medians can reduce the crash rate

by one crash per hundred million vehicle miles

traveled. According to the Transportation Research

Board 2003 Access Management Manual, adding a

median to a road that previously had a continuous

two-way left-turn lane can reduce the crash rate

about 37% and the injury rate about 48%.

Based on the review of crashes that occurred along

Boundary Street between Neil Road and Palmetto

Street, 880 crashes occurred between January 1,

2005 and December 31, 2007. These crashes varied

in nature along the corridor, but the majority of

1 National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 3-52

crashes were rear-end crashes or angle collisions.

Most of the rear-end collisions were caused by

constant starting and stopping due to traffic signals,

or vehicles slowing to make a turn into one of the

many driveways along the corridor. Angle collisions

primarily were caused by vehicles turning left

against opposing traffic or turning into traffic from

one of the many driveways along the corridor.

The potential improvements along Boundary Street

should provide relief to the current crash history

along the corridor. Based on examining right-angle

and sideswipe collisions using the 2005-2007 crash

data, the installation of a median along Boundary

Street would decrease total crashes by 20% (from

880 to 704) and injuries by 24% for right-angle and

sideswipe crashes. Moreover, the actual reductions

in crashes and injures are likely to be greater, since

not all existing intersections will have median

openings.

Table 1 – Intersection Crash Summary

IntersectionTotal

Crashes

Injury Crashes

PDOCrashes

AverageDaily

TrafficCrashRate*

EPDOValueType 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4

Boundary Street at Neil Road 30 7 3 0 0 20 21,200 1.29 50

Boundary Street at Robert SmallsParkway/Palmetto Drive

124 20 13 2 0 89 30,100 3.25 194

Boundary Street at Polk Street 7 2 1 0 0 4 27,950 0.23 13

Boundary Street at Hogarth Street 130 24 10 4 0 92 26,850 4.42 206

Boundary Street at Greenlawn Drive 88 18 7 3 1 59 26,000 3.09 155

Boundary Street at Marsh Road 4 0 0 0 0 4 26,200 0.14 4

Boundary Street at Ribaut Road 49 6 2 0 0 41 25,800 1.73 65

Boundary Street at Union Street 19 3 1 2 0 13 13,400 1.29 31

Boundary Street at Palmetto Street 14 0 0 1 0 13 13,400 0.95 16

Total 465 80 37 12 1 335 - - -

*Per million vehicles entering

Table 2 – Mid-block Crash Summary

Mid-Block SegmentTotal

Crashes

Injury Crashes

PDOCrashes

AverageDaily

TrafficCrashRate*

EPDOValueType 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4

Neil Road to Robert Smalls Parkway/Palmetto Drive

62 7 7 2 0 46 20,900 11.92 94

Robert Smalls Parkway/Palmetto Drive to Hogarth Street

100 18 7 0 0 75 26,300 12.22 150

Hogarth Street to Greenlawn Drive 154 30 15 6 1 102 25,600 10.74 267

Greenlawn Drive to Ribaut Road 76 10 3 0 0 63 25,500 9.58 102

Ribaut Road to Lafayette Street 23 3 1 3 0 16 12,100 7.64 37

Total 415 68 33 11 1 302 - - -

*Per million vehicle miles


3-7

3.2 Projected 2030 Traffic Volumes

Historic traffic counts for the Boundary Street corridor from 1990 to 2006 were obtained from SCDOT and

were reviewed for all sections of the study area. The traffic count history shows that growth rates of -1.0%

to 1.25% per year were experienced in the study area. These growth rates were considered during the

projection of future-year volumes.

The 2025 Beaufort Travel Demand Model was used to assess the growth of traffic on the Boundary Street

corridor in the study area from 2004 to 2025. Output files containing loaded travel volumes for 2004 and

2025 were compared to calculate an annual growth rate for the time period. The projected annual growth

rates in the primary study area between SC 170 and Ribaut Road ranged from 1.04% to 1.27%, averaging

1.19%. To be conservative and consistent with other Beaufort County projects, the model volumes did not

take into account the northern bypass, which currently is not funded.

As described in the previous paragraphs, two different sources were investigated for projecting future-year

(2030) volumes for the Boundary Street study area – traffic count history and the travel demand model.

Both sources project average annual growth rates of less than 1.3% per year. Based on this information,

knowledge of the study area, and engineering judgment, growth rates were developed for the Boundary

Street corridor traffic study. These rates were applied to the observed peak-hour data for the no-build

scenario.

3.3 Analysis

Analysis was performed for the existing and 2030 no-build conditions. The no-build analysis includes all

2030 projected traffic with existing roadway geometry. It was determined that 10 of the 13 studied

intersections operate at an acceptable LOS (D or better during a peak period) for each of the three peak

periods for existing traffic volumes. The following intersections currently do not operate with an

acceptable LOS:

Boundary Street at Polk Street/Beaufort Plaza Driveway during the mid-day peak hour

Boundary Street at the K-Mart entrance during the mid-day peak hour

Boundary Street at Palmetto Street during the PM peak hour

All three of these intersections are unsignalized. It is typical for stop-sign-controlled side streets and

driveways intersecting major streets to experience long delays during peak hours, while the majority of the

traffic moving through the intersection on the major street experiences little or no delay.

The 2030 no-build condition indicated that 5 of the 13 studied intersections would operate with an

acceptable LOS for the AM and PM peak periods. The following eight intersections would not operate

with an acceptable LOS:

Boundary Street at Neil Road during the AM and PM peak hours

Boundary Street at Robert Smalls Parkway during the AM and PM peak hours (signalized)

Boundary Street at Polk Street/Beaufort Plaza Driveway during the AM and PM peak hours

Boundary Street at Pickpocket Plantation Drive during the AM and PM peak hours

Boundary Street at the K-Mart entrance during the PM peak hour

Boundary Street at Ribaut Road during the PM peak hour (signalized)

Boundary Street at Palmetto Street during the PM peak hour

Robert Smalls Parkway at Salem Road during the PM peak hour

The majority of the deficient intersections listed above are unsignalized with long delays at the minor

street approaches and little or no delays at the major street approaches. Table 3 summarizes the LOS and

delay (seconds per vehicle) as well as volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios for existing and projected 2030

traffic conditions. The no-build analysis includes all the 2030 projected traffic with existing roadway

geometry. The 2030 build analysis includes projected traffic from regional growth as well as from the

additional development recommended in the Boundary Street Master Plan.


3-8

Table 3Level of Service Summary

Condition

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

LOS(Delay) V/C Ratio LOS

(Delay) V/C Ratio

Boundary Street at Neil Road

2007 Traffic (Existing) –Unsignalized C (22.1) 0.09 D (25.6) 0.14

2030 Traffic (No-Build) – Unsignalized E (36.0) 0.19 E (46.3) 0.30

Boundary Street at Robert Smalls Parkway (SC 170)/Palmetto Drive

2007 Traffic (Existing) – Signalized C (22.3) 0.70 D (36.2) 0.80

2030 Traffic (No-Build) – Signalized E (71.0) 0.94 F (112.8) 1.06

2030 Traffic (Build) – Master Plan withImprovements – Signalized

C (34.3) 0.81 C (38.9) 0.90

Boundary Street at Polk Street/Beaufort Plaza Driveway

2007 Traffic (Existing) –Unsignalized D (28.4) 0.05 D (27.6) 0.52

2030 Traffic (No-Build) – Unsignalized F (216.8) 0.42 F (undef.) 10.00

2030 Traffic (Build) –Master Plan withImprovements – Signalized

B (11.3) 0.78 D (40.7) 1.08

Table 3Level of Service Summary (continued)

Condition



(Delay) V/C Ratio

Boundary Street at Pickpocket Plantation Drive

2007 Traffic (Existing) – Unsignalized C (17.3) 0.10 B (14.4) 0.06

2030 Traffic (No-Build) – Unsignalized E (42.0) 0.35 E (36.2) 0.26

2030 Traffic (Build) – Master Plan –Unsignalized / Right-turn only

C (21.4) 0.23 C (18.3) 0.28

Boundary Street at Hogarth Street

2007 Traffic (Existing) – Signalized A (6.1) 0.55 A (7.1) 0.64

2030 Traffic (No-Build) – Signalized A (9.3) 0.74 B (14.1) 0.86

2030 Traffic (Build) – Master Plan –Signalized

B (10.7) 0.75 C (25.5) 0.98

Boundary Street at K-Mart Entrance (Carolina Cove)

2007 Traffic (Existing) – Unsignalized B (11.9) 0.11 D (26.0) 0.56

2030 Traffic (No-Build) – Unsignalized C (16.1) 0.20 F (50.2) 0.82

2030 Traffic (Build) –Master Plan withImprovements – Signalized

A (5.7) 0.65 C (30.9) 0.98


3-9


Condition



(Delay) V/C Ratio

Boundary Street at Beaufort Town Center Main Drive

2007 Traffic (Existing) – Signalized A (3.0) 0.52 B (11.4) 0.63

2030 Traffic (No-Build) – Signalized A (3.5) 0.68 B (17.5) 0.97


A (3.9) 0.67 C (31.8) 2.03

Boundary Street at Greenlawn Drive

2007 Traffic (Existing) –Unsignalized C (18.3) 0.06 C (16.9) 0.05

2030 Traffic (No-Build) – Unsignalized B (14.8) 0.05 D (33.9) 0.15

2030 Traffic (Build) – Master Plan –Unsignalized/Right-turn only

B (11.4) 0.04 C (18.5) 0.11

Boundary Street at Marsh Road

2007 Traffic (Existing) – Signalized A (4.9) 0.55 B (10.9) 0.66

2030 Traffic (No-Build) – Signalized A (8.0) 0.72 C (21.3) 0.87


A (6.1) 0.70 C (20.8) 1.05


Condition



(Delay) V/C Ratio


2007 Traffic (Existing) – Signalized D (38.1) 0.52 D (44.0) 0.70

2030 Traffic (No-Build) – Signalized D (42.5) 0.71 E (73.4) 0.94


B (18.7) 0.71 B (16.9) 0.89

2030 Traffic (Build) – Master Plan –Roundabout

A (6.2) 0.59 B (12.3) 0.94

Boundary Street at Palmetto Street

2007 Traffic (Existing) – Unsignalized C (15.3) 0.05 F (67.9) 0.07

2030 Traffic (No-Build) – Unsignalized C (20.6) 0.09 F (332.0) 0.36

2030 Traffic (Build) – Master Plan –Unsignalized

C (18.2) 0.06 C (20.6) 0.10

Robert Smalls Parkway (SC 170) at Salem Road

2007 Traffic (Existing) – Unsignalized C (15.3) 0.05 C (23.7) 0.14

2030 Traffic (No-Build) – Unsignalized C (20.1) 0.09 E (45.5) 0.31


3-10


ConditionAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour


(Delay) V/C Ratio

Robert Smalls Parkway (SC 170) at Neil Road

2007 Traffic (Existing) –Unsignalized B (10.4) 0.19 B (12.8) 0.30

2030 Traffic (No-Build) – Unsignalized B (11.6) 0.27 C (17.0) 0.46

An arterial analysis was conducted along Boundary Street for existing (2007), projected (2030) no-build,

and projected (2030) build traffic volumes with and without recommended improvements. Table 4

indicates that Boundary Street would not operate at acceptable LOS with projected (2030) traffic volumes

during the PM peak hour. With the Boundary Street Master Plan and additional recommended

improvements, the corridor is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS.

Table 4Arterial Level of Service - Boundary Street

ConditionAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound

2007 Traffic (Existing) C C D C

2030 Traffic (No-Build) D C F D

2030 Traffic (Build) – Master Planwith Recommended Improvements C C D D

The intersections of Boundary Street at Robert Smalls Parkway (SC 170) and Boundary Street at Ribaut

Road (US 21) are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS for the PM peak hour in 2030. As a means to

relieve congestion and delays at these intersections, roundabouts were proposed in the Boundary Street

Master Plan. Analysis indicates that a roundabout would be effective at the Boundary Street at Ribaut

Road intersection. It is recommended that the realigned Robert Smalls Parkway at Boundary Street

remain signalized and its roadway geometry be upgraded.


3-11

Table 5Traffic Control Analysis

Boundary Street at Robert Smalls Parkway (SC 170)

Condition



(Delay) V/C Ratio

2007 Traffic (Existing) – Signalized C (22.3) 0.70 D (36.2) 0.80

2007 Traffic (Existing) – Roundabout B (12.7) 0.78 D (42.1) 1.11

2030 Traffic (No-Build) – Signalized E (71.0) 0.94 F (112.8) 1.06

2030 Traffic (No-Build) – Roundabout E (74.2) 1.57 F (166.5) 1.75

2030 Traffic(Build) – Master Plan withImprovements – Signalized

C (34.3) 0.81 D (38.9) 0.90


B (14.5) 0.93 F (80.7) 1.50

Table 5 summarizes the LOS and delay at the intersection of Boundary Street at Robert Smalls Parkway

for the existing, no-build, and build traffic conditions for signal and roundabout operation. Analysis based

on projected (2030) traffic volumes indicates a multi-lane roundabout would not provide acceptable LOS

and would result in long delays and extensive queues. A roundabout does not work at this intersection

because of the high number of vehicles entering the roundabout, in particular the westbound left-turn

movement from Boundary Street onto Robert Smalls Parkway. This heavy left-turn movement creates

long delays and queues for the eastbound travelers on Boundary Street because they have to yield to the

left-turns before entering the roundabout. Conversely, a signal with recommended improvements would

provide an acceptable LOS; therefore, a traffic signal is recommended for this intersection.

Table 6 summarizes the LOS and delay at the intersection of Boundary Street at Ribaut Road for the

existing, no-build, and build traffic conditions for signal and roundabout operation. Analysis indicates

that during all study periods, a roundabout would provide a better LOS than a signal; therefore; a

roundabout is the recommend traffic control for this intersection. The reason a roundabout works at this

intersection in comparison to the one at Robert Smalls Parkway is that the heavy eastbound movement on

Boundary Street to access Ribaut Road is a free-flow right turn. Vehicles making these right turns never

have to enter the roundabout, allowing better circulation with less delay and shorter queues.

Table 6Traffic Control Analysis


Condition



(Delay) V/C Ratio

2007 Traffic (Existing) – Signalized D (38.1) 0.52 D (44.0) 0.70

2007 Traffic (Existing) – Roundabout A (6.8) 0.55 B (10.7) 0.84

2030 Traffic (No-Build) – Signalized D (42.5) 0.71 E (73.4) 0.94

2030 Traffic (No-Build) – Roundabout B (14.4) 0.88 E (66.0) 1.38


B (18.7) 0.71 B (16.9) 0.89


A (6.2) 0.59 B (12.3) 0.94


3-12

In the Boundary Street Master Plan, a 2-lane roadway is planned to the north paralleling Boundary Street.

The alignment of this parallel street was analyzed and discussed extensively during the development of

alternatives, as described in the following chapters. The planned roadway extends west from Polk Street

to Palmetto Drive and intersects Boundary Street opposite the relocated Robert Smalls Parkway. The

street extends east from Hogarth Street, turning north at the K-Mart and crossing the Beaufort Town

Center parking lot to connect with Burnside Street. This street also connects to Marsh Road via Pearl

Street. A new connector is proposed to extend the parallel street to Sycamore Street near Morris Street.

Polk Street and Burnside Street provide alternative access to retail and residential developments north of

Boundary Street. Major full-movement access points along Boundary Street to access Burnside Street

include the intersections of Polk Street, Hogarth Street, Carolina Cove, Beaufort Town Center Main Drive,

and Marsh Road. Other access points are planned to be restricted to right-in/right-out at Boundary

Street. Traffic along the parallel street is anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS. Based on the

projected development presented in the Master Plan, southbound queuing is expected along Carolina

Cove and Beaufort Town Center Main Drive intersecting Boundary Street. Queues may extend back to the

parallel street according to the projected (2030) traffic volumes. It is recommended that the storage

lengths for these southbound lanes be designed to accommodate queues.

The Boundary Street Master Plan includes a one-way Frontage Street just north of Boundary Street

between Polk Street and Beaufort Town Center Main Drive. The Frontage Street is planned to provide

access to the commercial development along Boundary Street while minimizing driveways along Boundary

Street. On-street parking is planned along the Frontage Street. The Master Plan indicates four full-

movement intersections between the Frontage Street and intersecting streets. From west to east, these

intersections include Polk Street, Hogarth Street, Carolina Cove, and Beaufort Town Center Main Drive.

These full-movement access points will create capacity and safety issues along Boundary Street. Polk

Street and Carolina Cove should be signalized when warranted.

To minimize the number of vehicle conflicts between Boundary Street and the Frontage Street at major

intersections, it is recommended that the Frontage Street be modified to tie to Boundary Street in advance

of major intersections. In addition, the one-way Frontage Street would begin at Carolina Cove rather than

Beaufort Town Center Main Drive, which is projected to have heavy traffic volumes. The Frontage Street

would continue to the west, end approximately 300 feet from Hogarth Street, and tie into Boundary Street

where vehicles would be required to turn right onto Boundary Street. All access points between the

Frontage Street and Boundary Street would be closed. The Frontage Street would continue west starting

at Hogarth Street and end approximately adjacent to Pickpocket Plantation Drive where vehicles can use a

right-only lane to turn onto Boundary Street. By ending the Frontage Street in advance of major

intersections, southbound queuing at these major intersections can occur without blocking Frontage

Street through traffic, thereby improving the overall safety and operation.

Public Information and Outreach

4-1

4.0 PUBLIC INFORMATION AND OUTREACHThe most complex roadway projects are not new highways through vacant land, but rather those such as

redesigning a street that carries 40,000 vehicles in any given 24-hour period. There also are many more

stakeholders potentially affected by infill or redesign of an existing street. At least 20,000 people operate a

motor vehicle on Boundary Street each day, many of whom live, work and/or stop to buy things along the

way. All of these people are stakeholders in this process

A small subsection of stakeholders on Boundary Street were contacted in 2008. Because the master plan

process included a great deal of participation by the general public, the stakeholder engagement process

for Boundary Street centered on people who own property and/or manage businesses in the corridor. The

study team attempted to contact as many of these stakeholders as possible. This follow-up planning study

brought a subgroup of stakeholders together for ongoing discussions about the details of the

improvements recommended in the master plan. It has been the desire of both the City of Beaufort and

Beaufort County to inform stakeholders of the details before binding decisions are made. This objective

has been achieved. This chapter describes the process and outcome of stakeholder meetings and other

public involvement activities conducted as part of the conceptual design process.

4.1 Purpose of Engagement

Changes to Boundary Street will affect citizens, businesses, and other stakeholders along the corridor. The

purpose of stakeholder engagement in this phase of the Boundary Street planning study is to promote and

provide a variety of meaningful forums for stakeholders in the corridor to learn about and comment on the

proposed street designs. A list of involved stakeholders and issues of interest is detailed later in this plan.

As a result of the Boundary Street stakeholder engagement process, business owners/managers, property

owners, institutions, and residents along the corridor had meaningful opportunities to provide feedback

regarding the preliminary redesign of Boundary Street.

4.2 Terms

Terms commonly used throughout this chapter are defined as follows:

Stakeholders – Individuals, organized groups, businesses and organizations invited by the City to

participate, as well as others who expressed an interest in participating. The latter were added to

the project mailing list.

Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) – Individuals or their official designees who were

invited by the City to participate as members of the Boundary Street Stakeholder Advisory

Committee. A list of those who served on the SAC is presented later in this section.

Citizens – The general public. If a citizen contacted the project team for information, the project

team considered that citizen to also be a stakeholder. There were no prerequisites for registration

as a stakeholder other than providing a name and contact information to the project team at a

project meeting or via regular mail, e-mail, or registration through the project website.

Engagement – The engagement methods varied for each of the groups defined above. By invitation

only, members who served on the Stakeholder Committee (SC) received regular updates about the

project including information at SC meetings. Other stakeholders were not invited to the SC

meetings, but received updates via newsletters and invitations to the design public meeting.

Citizens who were not registered with the project team would only hear project updates by

reading about them in the newspapers, visiting the project website, or hearing about them through

other media.


4-2

4.3 Guiding Principles

The Boundary Street project team recognizes and embraces the important role of stakeholder engagement

in the design process. Team members were guided by the following principles when communicating with

stakeholders interested in the proposed Boundary Street changes:

Those groups likely to be the ones most affected received early identification and communication.

A more personal approach was offered to these groups (for example, individual meetings and

presentations to small groups were offered by the consultant).

Two-way communication (i.e., free exchange of information, ideas, and values between the project

team and stakeholders) was sought. A specific methodology to solidify two-way communication

was established early and used routinely, including face-to-face meetings, comment forms linked to

the website, and open house style conversations at the public meeting.

Project information was communicated to invited stakeholders through Stakeholder Advisory

Committee meetings.

Project information was communicated to the general public through a design public meeting,

project website hosted on the City’s official website; presentations to small groups, and

information provided to local news media.

The project team considered all reasonable input from citizens, particularly that which was

reasonably consistent with the Master Plan. That is, the City and County directed the project

team to design Boundary Street consistent with the Master Plan, to the extent practicable.

Follow-up to citizen inquiries was completed within two business days. This quick action built

trust and confidence and conveyed respect for citizens.

All engagement activities and input were documented.

A series of public outreach actions, both formal and informal, were undertaken. Formal actions

included the design public meeting held on October 1, 2008 and the four Stakeholder Committee

meetings held at key points in the design. Informal actions encompassed responses to citizen

phone calls and e-mail.

Opportunities for multiple forms of input were offered from the beginning of the study. Interested

citizens were given the project team leader’s name and local telephone number, street address, and

e-mail address.

4.4 Issues of Interest

Stakeholder engagement activities targeted those affected, including business owners, residents, and

property owners in proximity to where changes are being considered on Boundary Street. Local

institutions in the study area, users of Boundary Street, elected officials, and the general public also were

involved. The following paragraphs summarize audiences and issues of consequence.

Residents and Property Owners in the Study Area

Residents adjacent to Boundary Street primarily live in single-family dwellings north of Boundary Street

between Hogarth Street and Palmetto Drive or in the Carolina Cove office and condominium complex

north of Boundary Street immediately west of K-Mart. Issues expressed by residents who attended the

public meeting on October 1, 2008 include:

Changes in access to Boundary Street

Need for a traffic signal at Boundary at Carolina Cove

Negative impact on property values if the parallel street is built near the condos

Residents were informed that the median is essential to attaining necessary traffic safety benefits and that

too many median openings would negate those benefits.

The parallel street is recommended to be built south of the condos so as not to block residents’ view of the

marsh. The easternmost condo units would be taken under the current plan.


4-3

Businesses and Non-Residential Property Owners

Business and property owners and managers were well represented on the Stakeholder Advisory

Committee. Most comments expressed were specific to their property and/or business.

Issues and concerns expressed by these individuals include:

Loss of land or structures due to street widening (this affects two structures and 62 parcels of land

for Boundary Street improvements only)

Loss of left-turn access when the median is built, and concerns about losing customers and

experiencing delays in emergency services

Changes in on-site circulation due to loss of median openings causing delivery truck circulation to

take longer and affect on-site parking

Driveway changes

Realignment of Robert Smalls Parkway

Location of the parallel street relative to planned buildings

Changes in sign and/or building visibility from Boundary Street

Every effort was made to provide information and respond to questions.

In general, some stakeholders are skeptical about how a transition from automobile-oriented to

pedestrian-oriented businesses will occur and what that means to their business interests. Examples of

places that have undergone such transitions include Charleston, SC and other larger metropolitan areas.

Boundary Street Users

Roadway users include motorists, truck drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists. These stakeholders’ concerns

included:

Traffic crashes

Congestion and signal delays

Confusion learning to drive a modern roundabout

Confusion learning new routes due to a raised median

Changes planned for Boundary Street were described to motorists who participated in discussions at the

design public meeting. They were given information regarding the increased safety that would result with

a roundabout and medians. They also were assured that the roundabout will be properly designed,

marked, and signed for safety and efficient operation by motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians.

Special consideration has been given to pedestrians and cyclists crossing and using the roadway during all

stages of the project, from data collection to stakeholder engagement and design. The wider sidewalks,

increased buffer distance between pedestrians and moving cars, and additional signalized intersections

(ultimately) all are intended to improve pedestrian safety, comfort, and convenience. All sidewalks and

intersections will be designed and built to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility

Guidelines (ADAAG) published by the Access Board arm of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The addition of striped bicycle lanes on Boundary Street will enhance cyclist comfort and is intended to

increase the number of cyclists safely riding on Boundary Street. Appropriate lane markings and signage

will be applied at intersections.

4.5 Communications Strategies

To be effective, outreach efforts are tailored to the needs and concerns of specific constituent groups in a

manner conducive to their involvement. Some communications, such as newspaper columns, can meet the

diverse needs of all stakeholders. Other times, different strategies are more effective in accomplishing

project objectives.

The strategies of the stakeholder engagement plan implemented so far included:

Establishing the purpose and need for the Boundary Street project in clear and concise terms.


4-4

Providing a context in which transportation

needs and economic opportunities are

addressed in a manner that is compatible

with community expectations.

Designing newsletters and website elements

to help the general public better respond to

the project team.

Providing forums to encourage discussion

and dialogue between the Stakeholder

Committee and project team members.

Establishing an expected schedule of

meetings with the Stakeholder Committee

to report the design process and crucial

issues, as well as building consensus and

reaching the necessary approvals to move

the project along on its expected schedule.

4.6 Stakeholder Engagement Action Steps

Contact Database and Mailing List

The City provided a mailing list database based on the limits established for the ground survey. Citizens

who requested information about the Boundary Street design project and provided contact information to

the project team were added to the mailing list database. The database was used to announce the public

meeting, and will be maintained through the completion of the project. There are 196 names on the

mailing list.

Project Website

The City of Beaufort has an established website with pages about current projects. Working with the

City, the project team developed a website with content linked to the City’s website www.cityof

beaufort.org. Project-related content

was added at key phases of the study.

Newsletter

To ensure that the public, community

leaders, and local business and

property owners in the corridor are

informed about the process and

findings of the Boundary Street design

project, a multi-color newsletter was

developed to provide ongoing

information about the project. The

newsletter, dated June, 2008, was

distributed to persons on the project

mailing list and to City and County

officials via mail and at the public

meeting on October 1, 2008. It also

was available at City and County

offices and on the project website. The newsletter is presented in Appendix ZZ. Additional printed

material also was distributed at the public meeting.


4-5

Responses to Inquiries

All incoming mail was responded to by mail (or by telephone, if requested) within two business days. All

telephone calls received were returned within two days. Because of the convenient location of Kimley-

Horn’s office on Boundary Street, most inquiring citizens preferred to meet with the firm’s project

manager at his office as a follow-up to their phone calls.

Design Public Meeting

The format for the design public meeting on October 1 was a combination of "drop-by-anytime" displays

staffed by Boundary Street project team staff and a formal presentation (including a slide show).

Approximately 60 people attended and registered at the meeting.

Announcement of the design public meeting was provided to media outlets by press release. Flyers

announcing the workshop were provided to City staff for their distribution.

Meetings and Coordination

The Boundary Street Improvements planning phase included a significant amount of coordination and

meetings with City and County staff, utility owners, permitting agencies, and stakeholders. Below is list

of formal meetings that were held. For complete meeting minutes, see Appendix 2.

A public meeting was held to notify the general public of the project. The design team and City and

County staff were present to answer questions about the designs and obtain feedback to consider and

incorporate in final design where feasible.

Date Meeting

November 20, 2007 Project Kickoff, Project Meeting #1

December 11, 2007 Project Meeting #2

January 31, 2008 SCDOT Coordination Meeting #1

February 7, 2008 Progress Meeting #1

March 6, 2008 Progress Meeting #2

March 27, 2008 Stakeholder Meeting #1

April 3, 2008 Progress Meeting #3

May 6, 2008 Progress Meeting #4

June 5, 2008 Progress Meeting #5

June 19, 2008 Stakeholder Meeting #2

June 26, 2008 Progress Meeting #6, SCDOT Coordination

continued on next page


4-6

In addition to the meetings listed above, several meetings

were held with community groups or individual property

owners. These meetings provided an opportunity for

Kimley-Horn staff to present the project and respond to

comments and questions in a one-on-one format. Kimley-

Horn provided informational material and prepared a

summary of each meeting. Meetings were conducted

with the following individuals:

Leon Meadows (Pastor of Riverview Baptist

Church)

Jiten (Jay) Desai

Paul Trask

Dick Stewart

Anish Patel

Kevin Peeples

Jan Malinowski

Seth Scarpa

Andy Corriveau

Pickpocket Plantation Drive group, which

included the following businesses: Waffle House,

Nationwide Insurance Agency, Hampton Inn, and

Summit Place

McDonald’s owners and engineer

All of the above, with the exception of Mr. Meadows,

represented specific property interests.

Stakeholder Advisory Committee

The City recommended citizens to serve on the

Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC). Kimley-Horn

as well as City and County staff attended periodic SAC

meetings. Kimley-Horn prepared meeting minutes,

which were reviewed by SAC members. Four SAC

meetings were held in 2008.

The following individuals served on the SAC:

Eddie Bellamy, Beaufort County Public Works

Paul Trask and Chandler Trask, Beaufort Plaza

Area

Joy Locke, Main Street Beaufort

Carlotta Ungaro, Beaufort Regional Chamber of

Commerce

Dick Stewart and Courtenay Worrell, 303

Associates, Beaufort Town Center

Alice Howard, MCAS Beaufort

Ed Allen, 16 Gate Cemetery Association

John and Audrey McCoy, McDonald’s

Jan Malinowski, Palmetto State Bank

Herb Gray, Piggly Wiggly

Kevin Peeples, Exxon Station

Seth Scarpa, Chick-Fil-A

Keara Lee-Potter, Summit Place

continued from previous page

Date Meeting

July 11, 2008 Conference Call with SCDOT

July 15, 2008 Presentation to City Council

July 17, 2008 Progress Meeting #7

July 17, 2008 Stakeholder Meeting #3

August 28, 2008 Progress Meeting #8

August 28, 2008 Stakeholder Meeting #4

September 23, 2008 Utility Coordination Meeting

October 1, 2008 Progress Meeting #9

October 2, 2008 Public Meeting

October 16, 2008 Progress Meeting #10

November 6, 2008 Progress Meeting #11

Conceptual Designs

5-1

5.0 CONCEPTUAL DESIGNSThe Boundary Street Improvements project conceptual design phase included the evaluation of three

proposed roadway design features: Boundary Street improvements, a proposed one-way frontage street,

and a proposed parallel street. Tasks for each feature include:

Boundary Street - Evaluate and conceptually design the conversion of the existing 5-lane facility

(from Neil Street to Palmetto Street) to a 4-lane facility with a raised/landscaped median, facilities

for pedestrians and bicyclists, streetscape features, and a modern roundabout to replace the traffic

signals at the intersection of Ribaut Road/Boundary Street.

Frontage Street - Evaluate and conceptually design a one-way westbound-only street adjacent to

and north of Boundary Street. The street will have intermittent access points connecting with

Boundary Street, to serve business driveways and on-street parking. Curb and gutter will separate

parked cars from pedestrians walking on a wide sidewalk. Streetscape features along the access

street will be important components of the design.

Parallel Street – Evaluate and conceptually design a new 2-lane street with parking and sidewalks

on both sides (where applicable). The street will parallel Boundary Street and t tie back into the

existing street network in Beaufort Town Center west of Ribaut Road and intermittently via cross

streets leading to and from Boundary Street. The west end of the parallel street will connect to

existing Polk Street and extend to Palmetto Drive and ultimately to Boundary Street.

5.1 Design Criteria

The first component of the conceptual design phase included the development of design criteria for all

streets types within the Boundary Street corridor. The draft design criteria, typical sections, and

conceptual roll plot was developed based on the Boundary Street Master Plan concepts and submitted to

SCDOT on April 10, 2008 for their review and comment. Revisions and follow-up responses based on

SCDOT comments were resubmitted on June 4, 2008. Additional comments received from SCDOT on

June 12, 2008 indicated that the proposed signal spacing on the project did not meet the new Access

Manual (ARMS) guidance, and a design exception would be required for the proposed 11-foot travel lanes.

A copy of the revised design criteria submitted on June 4, 2008 is included in Appendix 5. It should be

noted that some changes to design elements have occurred since that submittal, and the final design

criteria will need to be determined during the final design phase.

Conceptual Designs

5-2

5.2 Typical Sections

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. developed various typical section alternatives for conceptual design,

based on the Boundary Street Master Plan, The modifications that occurred during the process were based

on engineering analysis and feedback received from the City, County, SCDOT, and the public. The typical

sections described (and shown) below indicate the recommended street sections for the project (as of

November 5, 2008).

The Boundary Street and Frontage Street typical section consisted of 11-foot travel lanes, an 12-foot

landscaped median, 4-foot bike lanes in each direction, a 10-foot multi-use path on the south (separated

from the back-of-curb by a 7-foot grass strip), and a 5-foot sidewalk on the north (placed at the back-of-

curb). The future Frontage Street will consist of a 12-foot travel lane (westbound only), an 8-foot lane for

on-street parallel parking, and a 6-foot tree planting area on the north side adjacent to a 12-foot sidewalk.

The future Frontage Road will be separated from Boundary Street by a 12-foot landscaped median. The

combined Boundary Street and Frontage Street typical section shown on previous page illustrates the

proposed improvements (full size graphic included in Appendix 1).

The proposed parallel street has two basic typical sections. The new location portion of the proposed

roadway (east of Hogarth Street) was originally referred to as Pearl Street, as it was planned to tie into

existing Pearl Street, but it was later renamed Burnside Street as its new location changed through the

planning phase. The City of Beaufort ultimately will determine the name of the parallel street. The

remaining portion of the proposed parallel road (west of Hogarth Street) will keep the name Polk Street.

The following typical sections describe both Burnside Street and Polk Street planned improvements (full

size graphics included in Appendix 1).

Conceptual Designs

5-3

5.3 Alternative Designs

5.3.1 Boundary Street

Alternatives were developed for a symmetrical roadway

widening along Boundary Street from Neil Road to

Pickpocket Plantation Drive, an asymmetrical right-of-way

widening from Pickpocket Plantation Drive to Beaufort Town

Center, a reduced typical section and right-of-way width

between two cemeteries at Greenlawn Drive, an asymmetrical

right-of-way widening from Queen Street to Ribaut Road,

and a symmetrical roadway widening from Ribaut Road to

Palmetto Street. Each alternative includes a roundabout at

the intersection of Boundary Street and Ribaut Road.

The majority of the Boundary Street project length includes

asymmetrical right-of-way widening adjacent to the marsh.

Various horizontal alignment alternatives were evaluated as

shown in the adjacent figure. In addition, conceptual cross

sections at critical marsh locations were evaluated to

determine impacts on the adjacent marsh. Alternative 2 (4-

foot right-of-way widening to the south and 12-foot right-of-

way widening to the north) was chosen as the preferred

horizontal alignment. Additional graphics of the cross section

evaluation are included in Appendix 5.

Between Neil Road and Pickpocket Plantation Drive,

symmetrical roadway widening will be used to allow smooth

transitions for traffic flow from the existing roadway to the

new roadway sections. Tying to the existing section with a

symmetrical design also presents a consistent, correctly

designed roadway to motorists and avoids unexpected lane

transitions. Using an asymmetrical widening on each end

would have produced additional impacts to properties and

required reverse curves to tie back to the existing alignment.

Robert Smalls Parkway will be relocated approximately 300

feet west of the existing intersection location to create a 90-

degree intersection angle. The traffic signal at Robert Smalls

Parkway will be replaced with one at the new intersection.

An additional signal is proposed for the intersection of

Boundary Street with Polk Street and Beaufort Plaza.

Pickpocket Plantation Drive will be restricted to right-in,

right-out access only. However, a connection between

Beaufort Plaza and Pickpocket Plantation Drive, which was

shown in the original Boundary Street Master Plan, is

proposed and will be required prior to beginning

construction of the Boundary Street Improvements project.

This connection will allow traffic from Pickpocket Plantation

Drive to utilize the Beaufort Plaza intersection and make left

turns onto Boundary Street.

Conceptual Designs

5-4

The section of asymmetrical right-of-way widening from Pickpocket Plantation Drive to Beaufort Town

Center was developed to minimize impacts to the marsh on the south side of Boundary Street. The right-

of-way will widen four feet to the south and 12 feet to the north. By widening four feet to the south, the

existing site conditions will be used to the maximum extent without impacting the marsh. Retaining

walls will be required in three locations to prevent fill slopes from encroaching into the marsh. By

allowing four feet of widening to the south and limiting widening to the north to 12 feet, the impacts to

properties located on the north side of Boundary Street will be reduced. Widening completely to the

north (16 feet) would require additional property takes, thus resulting in additional project costs.

Traffic signals at Hogarth Street and Beaufort Town Center will be retained. When conditions warrant

installation, a traffic signal is proposed for the Carolina Cove complex intersection. The K-Mart Service

Drive, K-Mart Entrance Drive (directly in front of the store), and Beaufort Town Center East Drive

(between the Beaufort Town Center Main Entrance and Greenlawn Drive, adjacent to the Burnside

Building) will be restricted to right-in, right-out access only.

Between the two sections of 16-Gate Cemetery located on each side of Boundary Street at Greenlawn

Drive, the existing 80-foot right-of-way width will be used to the maximum extent without encroaching

upon either cemetery. The multi-use path and median widths will be reduced, and the grass verge will be

eliminated in this location to allow and maintain improvements to Boundary Street without impacting

either cemetery. Due to these constraints and the need to maintain a multi-use path on the south and

sidewalk on the north, safe left-turn maneuvers into or out of Greenlawn Drive cannot be accommodated.

Therefore, the median will continue through this area, resulting in right-in, right-out access for Greenlawn

Drive.

Between Queen Street and Ribaut Road, Boundary Street will be widened to the maximum extent on the

north side, without impacting the recently constructed office building between Queen Street and Marsh

Road. In this area, the multi-use path will increase back to the typical 10-foot width and change to a

boardwalk, and the grass verge will not be reintroduced to avoid impacting the marsh. Introduction of the

boardwalk in this area will eliminate impacts to the marsh that would have occurred with a typical paved

pathway. The intersection with Queen Street will be restricted in to right-in, right-out access only, and

the traffic signal at Marsh Road will be retained.

Between Marsh Road and Palmetto Street, the roadway will be symmetrically widened, and a roundabout

is proposed at the Boundary Street/Ribaut Road intersection. Between Marsh Road and Ribaut Road, the

grass verge will be reintroduced between the back-of-curb and multi-use path. The right-in, right-out

access for Sycamore Street will be maintained.

Between Ribaut Road and Palmetto Street, the intersection of Union Street with Boundary Street will be

restricted to right-in, right-out access only. Full-movement access will be allowed at the Palmetto Street

intersection, but it is not proposed to be signalized.

Three segments of frontage streets are proposed along the north side of Boundary Street. The sections will

be located between Polk Street and Hogarth Street, Hogarth Street and the Carolina Cove complex

driveway, and Carolina Cove and Beaufort Town Center Main Drive. Each frontage street will flow in the

westbound direction and end approximately 200 feet before the next intersection. Entrances to the

frontage streets will be located at signalized intersections only and no additional entrances from Boundary

Street will be provided. All driveways on the north side will connect to the frontage streets only, and

driveways will be minimized to create a continuous sidewalk/street frontage environment. Traffic will be

allowed to exit the frontage streets only onto Boundary Street.

A parallel street, composed of three separate street sections, is proposed in the area north of Boundary

Street. The sections will be located between Boundary Street and Hogarth Street, Hogarth Street and

Conceptual Designs

5-5

Greenlawn Drive, and Marsh Road and Sycamore Street. The conceptual parallel street locations were

designed based on the original Master Plan layout, with modifications to create smoother, continuous

street sections and alignments and to avoid existing structures where feasible. When completed, the

parallel street will allow local traffic to access Boundary Street businesses and shopping centers while

bypassing the congestion.

The first section of the parallel street, located between Boundary Street and Hogarth Street, will extend

Polk Street between Palmetto Drive and Hogarth Street. The existing section of Polk Street will be

widened to accommodate on-street parking on the south

side and sidewalks on each side.

The second section of the parallel street, located between

Hogarth Street and Greenlawn Drive, will connect the

neighborhood west of Hogarth Street with the Beaufort

Town Center area at Greenlawn Drive. The alignment

will tie to Hogarth Street, approximately 120 feet north of

the Hogarth Street/Polk Street intersection and will

connect to Burnside Street at the intersection with

Greenlawn Drive. This section will have various typical

sections comprised of on-street parking. Some areas will

have parallel parking lanes located on both sides of the

street, while other sections are proposed without on-

street parking. Pending future redevelopment, on-street

parking may be added where it is not currently proposed.

The final section of the parallel street, located between

Marsh Road and Sycamore Street, is based on the original

location as proposed in the Master Plan. This section will complete the parallel street network and

provide a connection to the new City Hall complex area. Based on revisions from the Master Plan, various

conceptual alignments were developed for this connection that avoid direct impacts to the hotel located

within the block. After multiple revisions and alignment iterations, the property owner and design team

were unable to reach consensus on an alignment; thus, the conceptual design was revised to reflect the

original Master Plan location. On-street parking is proposed along both sides of the street within this

block.

5.4 Roundabout

A 2-lane roundabout is proposed at the intersection of

Boundary Street and Ribaut Road. Introduction of the

roundabout will reduce traffic delays and allow the

intersection to operate more smoothly. The conceptual

roundabout was designed according to Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) standards for roundabout design,

with a 190-foot inscribed circle diameter, 16-foot travel

lanes, and a 12-foot truck apron. Entry and exit lanes will

taper from the standard roadway lane width to 16-foot

widths within the roundabout approaches to accommodate

truck traffic. A bypass lane will be used to accommodate

the large volume of right-turning traffic from eastbound

Boundary Street onto southbound Ribaut Road. Two entry

lanes will be used, and with the inclusion of the bypass

lane, two exit lanes will be provided at each approach. The

roundabout was designed so that approach angles and radii

will slow traffic and create safe entries into the

Conceptual Designs

5-6

roundabout, while exit angles and radii will produce smooth flow out of the roundabout. The conceptual

design of the proposed roundabout is included in Appendix 1.

5.5 Streetscape Design

Boundary Street was designed to be the gateway corridor for historic downtown Beaufort. The south side

of the street closest to the Marshes of Battery Creek will be lined with large street trees and decorative

street lighting along the 7-foot-wide planting strip. A 10-foot shared-use path adjacent to the planting

strip will have hardscape elements that draw their character from the historic Shell Road — the

predecessor of Boundary Street. A boardwalk will be used for a specific section of the shared-use path to

minimize the environmental impacts to the marsh. Median plantings of a native and drought-tolerant

plants will include

Palmetto palm trees,

ornamental trees,

and other accent

plantings. The

roundabout at

Ribaut Road was

designed to bring

together the

architectural

elements of the new

City Municipal

Complex and create

a new civic space for

the community. As

the focal point of

this new civic space, the roundabout will include year-round seasonal color beads, as well as other

drought-tolerant accent plantings. Civic art is not a part of this project but will be considered as a

possible future opportunity, and the landscape of the roundabout will be designed to accommodate this

future element. The conceptual streetscape rendering is located in Appendix 5.

5.6 Utility Evaluation and Coordination

In an effort to minimize overhead utility lines

along the Boundary Street corridor, Kimley-Horn

evaluated the existing utilities identified during

the survey phase for relocation opportunities.

Based on previous experience with duct bank

design and discussions with South Carolina

Electric & Gas, Kimley-Horn created drawings

showing existing utilities and proposed

streetscape designs in plans and cross section

format and transmitted them to all affected utility

owners. These drawings are included in Appendix

2.

Kimley-Horn held a utility coordination meeting

September 23, 2008. Representatives from the City

of Beaufort, Beaufort County, Dennis Corporation,

Andrews and Burgess, Kimley-Horn, South

Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G), Beaufort

Jasper Water and Sewer Authority (BJWSA),

Embarq, Hargray, and Charter Cable attended. At

Conceptual Designs

5-7

the meeting, Kimley-Horn received a hard copy of a duct bank previously designed by the utility

companies in conjunction with the City of Beaufort. It was determined the utility duct bank for the

project limit should mimic the shorter duct bank previously designed.

Utility relocation alternatives can be designed when a cross section for the roadway and streetscape

concept is selected. Possible alternatives include:

Full undergrounding, with all utilities moving into a new duct bank and removal of all utility poles

Partial undergrounding, with the transmission line remaining on a pole line and other utilities

relocating underground into a new duct bank

Cleaning up the overhead lines and consolidating

utilities overhead on taller poles

Relocating the aerial line to a parallel route

(undesirable to the utilities due to service and

access issues)

In order to best fulfill the goals of the Boundary Street

Master Plan — to create a more aesthetically pleasing,

streetscaped corridor — full undergrounding of utilities

is recommended. Completion of the duct bank and

undergrounding of all utilities will be required prior to

beginning construction for the roadway widening.

During preliminary design, it was determined based on

discussions between KHA, the County, the City, utility

companies, and SCDOT that the best location for the

duct bank would be under the proposed new sidewalk

on the north side of Boundary Street.

Aerial utility providers (SCE&G, Embarq, and Charter) were contacted to discuss additional needs and

work required to complete the relocations. In addition to the underground duct bank, each owner will

need pedestals, handholes, and other equipment placed periodically along the corridor. SCE&G will need

pad mounted equipment and utility cabinets at periodic locations, which is preferred to be placed on

private property.

In addition to relocating utilities to the proposed duct bank, temporary relocations may be required in

locations along the corridor. Where the final duct bank location is in conflict with existing utilities, the

utilities will be relocated. In order to reduce construction

costs, final design and utility coordination efforts should

strive to avoid such temporary relocations.

The City of Beaufort estimates approximately $500,000 is

available for cost sharing options for the undergrounding

and relocation of aerial utilities. These funds will come from

revenue and profit sharing agreements previously

established between the City and existing utility providers.

5.7 Design Matrixes

To facilitate the decision making process, Kimley-Horn

developed a conceptual evaluation matrix for the various

roadway design alternatives. These matrices were presented

to the City and County to help them select a preferred

design alternative. The matrices contained descriptions of

each design and listed advantages and disadvantages, access

considerations, project lengths, right-of-way taken, parcels

impacted, and buildings impacted for each alternative.

Conceptual Designs

5-8

These matrixes are included in Appendix 5.

5.8 Boundary Street Design Exception

Upon review of the initial Boundary Street design criteria and typical section, consisting of 11-foot travel

lanes, SCDOT indicated on June 12, 2008 that an application for a design exception must be submitted and

approved before use of 11-foot travel lanes would be permitted on the project. The design exception

application was prepared and submitted to SCDOT on August 15, 2008 requesting approval for use of 11-

foot travel lanes within the project. The application included documentation from AASHTO and FHWA

supporting pedestrian safety associated with the use of 11-foot lanes and Kimley-Horn recommendations

for the need and use of narrower lanes (from the standard 12-foot lane width) within the project.

Descriptions were included to discuss steps and impacts related to using 12-foot lanes and maintaining the

same design elements from the initial typical section. A copy of the submitted design exception is included

in Appendix 5.

SCDOT informed Kimley-Horn on October 7, 2008 that use of 11-foot lanes within the Boundary Street

corridor would not be accepted. Per requests from the City, Kimley-Horn continued to pursue and meet

with SCDOT concerning the design exception.

At the project progress meeting on November 6, 2008, Kimley-Horn was directed by the County to stop

pursuit of the design exception for 11-foot travel lanes. To expedite the conceptual design of the project,

the exception was placed on hold until the final design phase when it can be further investigated.

5.9 Recommended Improvements

During the November 6, 2008 progress meeting, development of an additional design was requested to

accommodate 12-foot travel lanes within the Boundary Street corridor. This design consisted of 12-foot

travel lanes, an 11-foot landscaped median, a 4-foot bike lane in the westbound direction, a 10-foot multi-

use path on the south side (separated from the back-of-curb by a 7-foot grass strip), and a 5-foot sidewalk

on the north side (placed at the back-of-curb). The right-of-way will be placed one foot behind the

sidewalk on the north side and two feet behind the multi-use path on the south side for each alternative,

producing a total right-of-way width of 96 feet. The landscape median width was reduced from 12 feet to

11 feet in the recommended alternative due to an SCDOT comment requiring modification of the proposed

median curb and gutter from a 1.5-foot to a 2-foot sloping face curb. See below and Appendix 1 for a

rendering of the recommended typical section.

Conceptual plans and roll plots were developed to display the recommended Boundary Street

improvements, one-way frontage street, and the proposed parallel street. These plans/plots for both the

recommended 12-foot Boundary Street travel lanes and original 11-foot Boundary Street travel lanes are

included in Appendix 1.

Conceptual Designs

5-9

5.10 Cost Estimates

Project construction costs were estimated throughout the conceptual design process. An initial opinion of

projected costs over time (cash flow spreadsheet) was prepared on April 16, 2008. This estimate was

prepared prior to any conceptual design work (except for the design criteria and typical section) and

included design, right-of-way, and construction costs from 2008 through 2016, for an estimated total of

$45.4 million (located in Appendix 5).

Estimated construction costs were revised for the July 17, 2008 progress meetings. These costs were based

on conceptual designs prepared and revised up to the date of the meeting. Estimated costs totaled $25.1

million for Boundary Street only. This estimate included construction costs, streetscape costs, right-of-

way acquisition, a proposed duct bank, and design and construction administration fees. A revised

estimate was prepared in December 2008 to cover the recommended design change to 12-foot travel lanes

on Boundary Street. Estimated costs increased to $25.7 million based on additional project footprint

required at the proposed intersection of Robert Smalls Parkway and Boundary Street. Cost increases were

mainly attributed to additional right-of-way and asphalt needed to construct the widened turn lanes. A

copy of both preliminary opinions of probable costs are included in Appendix 1. Detailed costs were not

estimated for the frontage street or parallel street.

Upon requests from the City, an estimate was prepared in July 2008 to determine the difference in costs

between a roundabout and signalized intersection at Boundary Street and Ribaut Road. The roundabout

will cost approximately $520,000 more than a signalized intersection, excluding maintenance costs for a

traffic signal.

Conceptual right-of-way appraisals were conducted for the project in June 2008. Appraisals for building

takes and right-of-way acquisition were estimated to fall within the project cost estimates. Right-of-way

costs were approximately $3 million for Boundary Street, $14 million for the frontage street, and $3.5

million for the parallel street. Building cost estimates totaled approximately $9.7 million for all phases of

the project. Construction for the Boundary Street-only portion is proposed to impact four buildings and

would total approximately $1 million. Building costs were estimated using dollars per square foot, but

costs varied depending on the use and condition of the existing structure. Cost of land required for right-

of-way included damages associated with loss of access, such as the frontage street eliminating direct

access to Boundary Street. Costs also were included for damages associated with impacts to properties.

Impacts to each property not only can result in a loss of property value, but also can create a loss of

parking for businesses, resulting in a potential loss of occupancy and revenue.

5.11 Recommended Phasing

Due to estimated construction costs that exceed current budget limitations, the Boundary Street

Improvements project will need to be phased over a period of time. At this time, Kimley-Horn

recommends delaying the frontage street and parallel street portions of the project and proceeding with

construction of the Boundary Street portion of the project. As funds become available, the parallel street

should be constructed. The frontage street should be built as development occurs, completing the

redevelopment of the Boundary Street corridor.

For further consideration, the construction of Boundary Street should be phased to fit within the available

budget. Three alternatives were considered as phasing options.

1. Eastern Option - Construct the eastern portion of Boundary Street from Hogarth Street to

Palmetto Street. Construction of the eastern portion first would allow the completion of the

roundabout and revisions to both the Ribaut Road intersection and the area in front of the new

City Hall complex. The western portion would be constructed in a subsequent phase to finalize

the Boundary Street improvements. Preliminary design schematics of the Eastern Option were

presented at a progress meeting held on August 28, 2008 and is located in Appendix 2.

Conceptual Designs

5-10

2. Western Option - Construct the western portion of Boundary Street from Neil Road to Marsh

Road. Construction of the western portion first would allow the completion of the largest portion

of the project and a smooth transition to the existing roadway section near the Marsh Road

intersection. Also, construction of the western portion would complete the revisions to the Robert

Smalls Parkway intersection and create a new gateway to Beaufort. The eastern portion would be

constructed in a subsequent phase to finalize the Boundary Street improvements. Preliminary

design schematics of the Western Option were presented at a progress meeting held on August 28,

2008 and is located in Appendix 2.

3. Bookends Option - Construct the “bookends” of the project. This option would allow each end of

the project to be completed, resulting in the construction of any gateway features at both ends of

the project to be completed during the first phase of the project. The middle portion of the

corridor would be constructed in a subsequent phase to finalize the Boundary Street

improvements. Preliminary design sketches of this option were not developed during the planning

phase and are not included in the Appendix.

On February 5, 2009, the City of Beaufort Redevelopment Commission provided direction for the final

design and potential construction phasing of the Boundary Street corridor. The recommendations of the

Commission were:

If phased, construction should begin on the western portion.

The entire length of Boundary Street should be designed (even if phased construction is utilized to

stay within budget).

The roundabout intersection at Ribaut Road will not be included in final design. However, the

final design shall incorporate sufficient right-of-way to construct the roundabout in the future.

Bike lanes shall be eliminated from the designs.

The multi-use path shall be constructed for the entire length of the project.

All aerial utilities shall be placed underground for the entire length of the project.

These comments were provided following completion of the preliminary designs but will be considered for

the final design plans for Boundary Street.

5.12 Safety and Emergency Services

During development of the preliminary roadway designs, safety of the vehicular and pedestrian traffic as

well as emergency service access was considered and incorporated into each alternative. Along Boundary

Street, three main safety considerations were incorporated into the design; a median throughout the

corridor, mountable curbs and islands along the median, and appropriately spaced landscaping in the

median.

The introduction of a median through the corridor will increase safety for both motorists and pedestrians.

The median creates a buffer and helps protect traffic from traffic flow in the opposing direction. The

median will not completely prevent a car from crossing into oncoming traffic, but it will help the motorist

feel more comfortable while driving along the corridor due to the buffer created by the median. The

median also creates a refuge area for pedestrians crossing Boundary Street. Without a median, pedestrians

must cross all lanes of traffic in one attempt or cross half of the road and wait in the center turn lane

without a protection from either direction of oncoming traffic. The median will create a minimum 4’ wide

area for pedestrians to wait in the event that they cannot cross the entire road in one attempt. (Refer to

page 28 of the Boundary Street “Traffic Analysis,” located in Appendix 4 of this document for additional

crash analysis and comparisons between median-divided facilities and multi-lane facilities with two-way

left-turn lanes.)

Mountable curbs and concrete islands are proposed along the entire median to allow emergency vehicles

to mount and cross the median where needed. Even though a median is present throughout the corridor,

the mountable curbs would allow an emergency vehicle access to a driveway or property along the

Conceptual Designs

5-11

opposite side of the street. The median will present a barrier to the normal traffic, but each emergency

service and response team will be aware that an EMS vehicle can and will be allowed to cross the median

during an emergency.

The landscaping in the median also will be appropriately spaced to allow EMS access through the median.

The landscaping will be installed in the median as part of the streetscape beautification process of the

corridor, but gaps will be placed periodically at specific driveways and intersections. These gaps will

provide locations for EMS vehicles to cross the median during an emergency.

As an additional safety and access measure for Boundary Street, the parallel street (Polk Street and

Burnside Street, to be completed in future phases of the project) will provide an alternate route through

the corridor. While the parallel street is intended for low-volume, low-speed, local use, it would provide

an alternative route if Boundary Street were to become blocked or impassable. Also, as an alternative route

for local traffic, the parallel street will relieve some traffic along Boundary Street, thus creating a safer

street due to the reduced traffic. The parallel street also will present a more pedestrian friendly

environment, enticing more pedestrians to use the parallel street rather than the busy Boundary Street

sidewalks.

5.13 Tree Impacts

The Boundary Street corridor survey was examined to determine potential impacts to trees as a result of

the project, with emphasis on impacts to Specimen Trees. The list of Specimen Trees within Beaufort

County, SC is identified in the “Administrative Directive for Tree Removal in Rights-of-Way,” issued June

6, 2001 by the County Administrator of Beaufort County. The project also must comply with the

Ordinances of the City of Beaufort, SC, specifically “Article 7: General Development Standards; Section 7.3:

Landscaping and Tree Conservation.” of the municipal code. These documents and the complete list of

Specimen Trees are included in Appendix 5.

A total of 22 species of trees are located within the project study area. These 22 species include the

following:

7 — Specimen Trees

2 — Not identified on the County directive but have been identified as Specimen Trees due to

existing diameter at breast height (dbh) of 24 inches or more

2 — Identified on the County directive but do not have a minimum 16 inch dbh

11 — Not identified as Specimen Trees

Based on the proposed preliminary designs and right-of-way as well as an area extending 20 feet beyond

the proposed right-of-way, 239 trees potentially will be impacted by this project. Of those trees, 43

Specimen Trees (9 species and sizes), approximately 18%, were identified within the study area.

To account for all tress potentially impacted by this project, an impact area of 20 feet beyond the right-of-

way was identified along the corridor. A 20 foot impact zone will allow for construction of the berm and

cut/fill slope behind the sidewalk as well as allow for equipment to maneuver during construction. The

majority of the project will not require an area this large outside of the proposed right-of-way, but

investigating 20 feet beyond the right-of-way will provide adequate room for the entire project. The study

area was divided into five zones to quantify impacts: existing right-of-way, proposed right-of-way, and

three zones beyond the proposed right-of-way: 0 to 5 feet, 5 to 10 feet, and 10 to 20 feet. Creating these

zones allowed individual trees to be analyzed and the possibility of eliminating impacts to individual trees

during final design to be considered. Each Specimen Tree identified was studied to determine the level of

impact, if any, by construction. These levels included impacted directly by construction, impacted

indirectly due to nearby construction, or no potential impacts due to the distance of the tree from the

presumed work area.

Upon further investigation, it was determined that 15 of the original 43 Specimen Trees (approximately

35%) identified in the project can be avoided. Each of the trees is between 10 and 20 feet beyond the

Conceptual Designs

5-12

proposed right-of-way. Impact to these trees could be avoided because of existing site conditions and the

distance between the tree and presumed work area. Some of the trees within the 10- to 20-foot zone may

be impacted by the limits of construction, but these trees are not identified as Specimen Trees.

Within the 5- to 10-foot zone, 8 of the 43 trees (approximately 19%) most likely will not be affected. It

was determined that impact to these trees potentially could be avoided because of the existing site

conditions and presumed impacts of the proposed work.

Within the 0 to 5-foot zone, 7 trees (approximately 16%) may avoid direct impact. However, indirect

impacts from adjacent construction could cause the tree to die. While these trees are not in direct conflict

with the proposed design, the effects of digging, grading, constructing fill slopes and retaining walls,

and/or operating machinery within the canopy of the tree may indirectly harm the overall health of the

tree. These impacts will be further studied and evaluated during final design, when more exact designs

will allow closer determination of potential impacts. During final design, if a Specimen Tree potentially

could be saved, the feasibility of adjusting areas of the proposed design away from typical conditions will

be investigated.

Upon review of the remainder of the trees within the study area, 10 trees (approximately 23%) will be

unavoidable. These trees include five Live Oak trees, two Palmetto trees, two Palm trees, and one

Southern Red Oak tree. These trees are unavoidable as they present direct conflicts with the proposed

work. In each case, alterations to the final design could not protect the trees without creating unsafe

conditions and a design not compliant with codes and specifications. If the roundabout intersection at

Boundary Street and Ribaut Road is eliminated from final design, the five Live Oak trees mentioned

previously would not be impacted and the revised total impacted Specimen Trees would be reduced to

five.

Two of the trees identified in the study area are within the new City Complex at the Boundary Street and

Ribaut Road intersection and would avoid impacts as part of the Boundary Street project. An additional

tree is located on the McDonald’s property, near the Robert Smalls Parkway intersection but will be

impacted by the private redevelopment of that site.

In accordance with the County directive memo concerning tree removal, a mitigation plan must be

established to lessen the effects of removal of the trees. This mitigation will be accomplished with future

landscaping that will accompany the Boundary Street project.

In accordance with the City of Beaufort Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), mitigation of tree

removal will be required as specified in “Article 7: General Development Standards; Section 7.3: Landscaping and

Tree Conservation.” of the municipal code. However, per a conversation with Libby Anderson, of the City of

Beaufort Planning Department, on March 6, 2009, this ordinance specifically governs site development

projects and does not apply to existing roadway projects. Though the ordinance does not apply to existing

roadway projects, the City of Beaufort does request for a reasonable attempt to mitigate impacts, where

site conditions are feasible, by installing trees and landscaping within the roadway project limits. Trees

and landscaping will be installed in the future landscaping plan, but the exact tree and planting species,

types, and sizes are not known at this time. Upon selection of trees and plantings and development of the

landscaping plan, the Adjusted Caliper Inches (ACI) (per City code) will be determined and provided as

part of the final design process.

Summary of Trees within Boundary Street Study Area - Zones

Zone Total Trees Protected Trees

Existing Right-of-Way 22 0

Proposed Right-of-Way 90 14

0' to 5' from Right-of-Way 41 6



Total 239 43

boundary street improvements - beaufort countythe focus of this study is the feasibility of...

Documents