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.
Traffic Engineering and Analysis
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
Traffic Engineering and Analysis
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
Traffic Engineering and Analysis
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.
Traffic Engineering and Analysis
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
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS(Delay) V/C Ratio LOS
(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
Traffic Engineering and Analysis
3-9
Table 3Level of Service Summary (continued)
Condition
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS(Delay) V/C Ratio LOS
(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
2030 Traffic (Build) – Master Plan –Signalized
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
2030 Traffic (Build) – Master Plan –Signalized
A (6.1) 0.70 C (20.8) 1.05
Table 3Level of Service Summary (continued)
Condition
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS(Delay) V/C Ratio LOS
(Delay) V/C Ratio
Boundary Street at Ribaut Road (US 21)
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
2030 Traffic (Build) – Master Plan withImprovements – Signalized
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
Traffic Engineering and Analysis
3-10
Table 3Level of Service Summary (continued)
ConditionAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS(Delay) V/C Ratio LOS
(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.
Traffic Engineering and Analysis
3-11
Table 5Traffic Control Analysis
Boundary Street at Robert Smalls Parkway (SC 170)
Condition
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS(Delay) V/C Ratio LOS
(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
2030 Traffic (Build) – Master Plan –Roundabout
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
Boundary Street at Ribaut Road (US 21)
Condition
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS(Delay) V/C Ratio LOS
(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
2030 Traffic (Build) – Master Plan withImprovements – Signalized
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
Traffic Engineering and Analysis
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.
Public Information and Outreach
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.
Public Information and Outreach
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.
Public Information and Outreach
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.
Public Information and Outreach
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
Public Information and Outreach
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
5' to 10' from Right-of-Way 46 11
10' to 20' from Right-of-Way 40 12
Total 239 43