Austin: US 290 Oak Hill Y project

[kernals12]

Apparantly TxDOT does want to turn 290 into a Freeway out to Dripping Springs
https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/drippingtx-meet-44ee7d68ac3147de94e852f803ed6211/ITEM-Attachment-001-f1c82fe0da54486e8609030b46655633.pdf

[TheBox]

Oh, now they're interested in making US-290 a freeway outside of Austin

jokes aside, San Antonio and Austin are slowly but surely (in case they aren't already) becoming a Megapolis with San Marcos and New Braunfels in between, meaning more traffic in the future

Make US-290 a freeway could possibly reduce (and possibly divide) the traffic on I-10 and I-35 north of San Antonio

[Bobby5280]

Apparantly TxDOT does want to turn 290 into a Freeway out to Dripping Springs

No, they don't. Rather TX DOT wants to extend the US-290 freeway to Hays County Acres Road. From that point going West they would intend to build a bypass around Dripping Springs. The diagram list of over-passed intersections in the PDF mention a "northern bypass" West of Hays County Acres Road. But it's anyone's guess what kind of alignment a US-290 freeway around Dripping Springs would take. One thing is certain: there is too much development within Dripping Springs to upgrade the existing US-290 alignment into a freeway flanked by frontage roads.

Additional freeway upgrades of US-290 out West of the Oak Hill Y Project (which will end just West of Circle Drive) are necessary. Traffic gets pretty heavy on US-290 thru Dripping Springs.

On top of US-290 issues TX DOT or whatever toll road authority that oversees TX-45 needs to work on building out that corridor to connect to the TX-45 segment on the East side of I-35 and extend it West to US-290. That way TX-45 can act as a proper relief route move a good amount of thru traffic around the South side of Austin.

San Antonio and Austin are slowly but surely (in case they aren't already) becoming a Megapolis with San Marcos and New Braunfels in between, meaning more traffic in the future

San Marcos and New Braunfels are among the fastest growing regions in the US. Few places can match that growth. Maybe Northwest Arkansas and the "triangle" area in North Carolina might be in contention. Around 5 million people now live in the combined Austin and San Antonio region. By 2030 it could be over 6 million.

Make US-290 a freeway could possibly reduce (and possibly divide) the traffic on I-10 and I-35 north of San Antonio

Austin is a big enough city that it needs its own East-West Interstate (nearly 1 million city limits population and 2 million metro). IMHO, the US-290 corridor should be upgraded West from Austin to I-10 out West of Fredericksburg. East of Austin multiple corridors will eventually need upgrades between I-35 and I-10 if rapid growth continues over the next 10, 20 or more years. US-290, TX-71, TX-80 & TX-46 will all needs lots of upgrade work.

[ethanhopkin14]

Apparantly TxDOT does want to turn 290 into a Freeway out to Dripping Springs

No, they don't. Rather TX DOT wants to extend the US-290 freeway to Hays County Acres Road. From that point going West they would intend to build a bypass around Dripping Springs. The diagram list of over-passed intersections in the PDF mention a "northern bypass" West of Hays County Acres Road. But it's anyone's guess what kind of alignment a US-290 freeway around Dripping Springs would take. One thing is certain: there is too much development within Dripping Springs to upgrade the existing US-290 alignment into a freeway flanked by frontage roads.

Additional freeway upgrades of US-290 out West of the Oak Hill Y Project (which will end just West of Circle Drive) are necessary. Traffic gets pretty heavy on US-290 thru Dripping Springs.

On top of US-290 issues TX DOT or whatever toll road authority that oversees TX-45 needs to work on building out that corridor to connect to the TX-45 segment on the East side of I-35 and extend it West to US-290. That way TX-45 can act as a proper relief route move a good amount of thru traffic around the South side of Austin.

San Antonio and Austin are slowly but surely (in case they aren't already) becoming a Megapolis with San Marcos and New Braunfels in between, meaning more traffic in the future

San Marcos and New Braunfels are among the fastest growing regions in the US. Few places can match that growth. Maybe Northwest Arkansas and the "triangle" area in North Carolina might be in contention. Around 5 million people now live in the combined Austin and San Antonio region. By 2030 it could be over 6 million.

Make US-290 a freeway could possibly reduce (and possibly divide) the traffic on I-10 and I-35 north of San Antonio

Austin is a big enough city that it needs its own East-West Interstate (nearly 1 million city limits population and 2 million metro). IMHO, the US-290 corridor should be upgraded West from Austin to I-10 out West of Fredericksburg. East of Austin multiple corridors will eventually need upgrades between I-35 and I-10 if rapid growth continues over the next 10, 20 or more years. US-290, TX-71, TX-80 & TX-46 will all needs lots of upgrade work.

I am so happy I might cry that someone at TxDOT actually is thinking about this.  I was thinking from Circle drive to Dripping Springs, the freeway would have to take on an alignment through new terrain, but making this happen would be way better. 

Keep going west.  I-10 relief route. 

[kernals12]

Apparantly TxDOT does want to turn 290 into a Freeway out to Dripping Springs

No, they don't. Rather TX DOT wants to extend the US-290 freeway to Hays County Acres Road. From that point going West they would intend to build a bypass around Dripping Springs. The diagram list of over-passed intersections in the PDF mention a "northern bypass" West of Hays County Acres Road. But it's anyone's guess what kind of alignment a US-290 freeway around Dripping Springs would take. One thing is certain: there is too much development within Dripping Springs to upgrade the existing US-290 alignment into a freeway flanked by frontage roads.

Additional freeway upgrades of US-290 out West of the Oak Hill Y Project (which will end just West of Circle Drive) are necessary. Traffic gets pretty heavy on US-290 thru Dripping Springs.

On top of US-290 issues TX DOT or whatever toll road authority that oversees TX-45 needs to work on building out that corridor to connect to the TX-45 segment on the East side of I-35 and extend it West to US-290. That way TX-45 can act as a proper relief route move a good amount of thru traffic around the South side of Austin.

San Antonio and Austin are slowly but surely (in case they aren't already) becoming a Megapolis with San Marcos and New Braunfels in between, meaning more traffic in the future

San Marcos and New Braunfels are among the fastest growing regions in the US. Few places can match that growth. Maybe Northwest Arkansas and the "triangle" area in North Carolina might be in contention. Around 5 million people now live in the combined Austin and San Antonio region. By 2030 it could be over 6 million.

Make US-290 a freeway could possibly reduce (and possibly divide) the traffic on I-10 and I-35 north of San Antonio

Austin is a big enough city that it needs its own East-West Interstate (nearly 1 million city limits population and 2 million metro). IMHO, the US-290 corridor should be upgraded West from Austin to I-10 out West of Fredericksburg. East of Austin multiple corridors will eventually need upgrades between I-35 and I-10 if rapid growth continues over the next 10, 20 or more years. US-290, TX-71, TX-80 & TX-46 will all needs lots of upgrade work.

I am so happy I might cry that someone at TxDOT actually is thinking about this.  I was thinking from Circle drive to Dripping Springs, the freeway would have to take on an alignment through new terrain, but making this happen would be way better. 

Keep going west.  I-10 relief route.

Interstate 14 will do the job that you want this US 290 freeway to do w.r.t. I-10

[thisdj78]

Oh, now they're interested in making US-290 a freeway outside of Austin

jokes aside, San Antonio and Austin are slowly but surely (in case they aren't already) becoming a Megapolis with San Marcos and New Braunfels in between, meaning more traffic in the future

Make US-290 a freeway could possibly reduce (and possibly divide) the traffic on I-10 and I-35 north of San Antonio

I'll have to find the page, but I believe I saw in CAMPO 2035 that there are plans for some connector routes between SW Austin, Wimberley and San Marcos. So looks like they plan for that area to completely fill up in the next 10 years.

[Bobby5280]

Interstate 14 will do the job that you want this US 290 freeway to do w.r.t. I-10

I-14 doesn't do anything at all for long distance traffic heading West out of Austin. If someone in Austin is heading to El Paso or points beyond he will be far better off just taking US-290 West to I-10. Driving clear up to Killeen or Lampasas (if I-14 ever gets built that far) will take them way out of the way. The I-14 route will go farther North the more it advances West. Motorists would be driving a big "V" shape going that way. US-290 to I-10 is more of a straight shot.

Not that it matters much. I'm skeptical anything will be added West of the existing I-14 segment any time soon. The stuff inside the Texas Triangle is likely to take many years. Building I-14 out to Midland will probably take much longer than that.

Meanwhile the Austin-San Antonio megapolis is going to keep on growing and the need for improved highway connections there will increase with that growth.

[thisdj78]

It's interesting that the CAMPO 2045 plan shows 290 and 71 as being limited access all the way east out of the region:

*All blue lines are existing or planned limited access highways*

[Bobby5280]

Interesting image. It does show the Southern leg of TX-45 being built across I-35 and out West to merge with US-290. The map also shows the blue limited access line for US-290 ending at Dripping Springs. There are some little dots going around the North side however. East of Austin both the TX-71 and US-290 corridors are shown as limited access. Some of the blue dotted lines farther North in the Georgetown area look like a good idea.

[kernals12]

It's interesting that the CAMPO 2045 plan shows 290 and 71 as being limited access all the way east out of the region:

*All blue lines are existing or planned limited access highways*

How come Loop 360 isn't blue? TxDOT is removing all the at-grade intersections

[sprjus4]

It's interesting that the CAMPO 2045 plan shows 290 and 71 as being limited access all the way east out of the region:

*All blue lines are existing or planned limited access highways*

How come Loop 360 isn't blue? TxDOT is removing all the at-grade intersections

They are?

[Echostatic]

Almost all of them.

https://www.loop360project.com/

[sprjus4]

Almost all of them.

https://www.loop360project.com/

Is it a true freeway upgrade, or merely interchanges replacing intersections?

[Bobby5280]

Loop 360 is only having some key intersections removed. It will not be fully Interstate quality or limited access. The finished project will still have some at-grade intersections, even if they are confined to right-in/right-out movements. Most at-grade left turn movements will be eliminated and even blocked by cable or concrete barriers.

[MaxConcrete]

Almost all of them.

https://www.loop360project.com/

Is it a true freeway upgrade, or merely interchanges replacing intersections?

According to the most recent information I remember (which may not be the latest info), the section from Loop 1 south to RM 2244 (Bee Caves road) will meet freeway standards, although there will still be signal at Loop 1. From RM 2244 northward to SH 183, all traffic signals and median crossovers will be eliminated but it will not be limited access.

Bids were opened for the first project in December, $70 million to eliminate the signal at Westlake Drive. However, no other projects are slated to go to bid in the next 2 years.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19115.0#lastPost

[Echostatic]

For most of the highway's length, it'll be a true freeway upgrade with frontage roads and proper interchanges. There's a few gaps in the current plans but I imagine those will be tackled later in the 2030s.

Here's the plan between MoPac and RM2244, compared to current conditions:




Between RM 2244 and Waymaker Way, no changes are proposed. Between Waymaker and the Pennybacker Bridge, here's the plan:



On the north side of the Colorado, the freeway will continue north to Great Hills Trail, with one intermediate RIRO at Winding Ridge Road and Southbound 360.




Past Great Hills Trail, there are no planned improvements

[kernals12]

Loop 360 is only having some key intersections removed. It will not be fully Interstate quality or limited access. The finished project will still have some at-grade intersections, even if they are confined to right-in/right-out movements. Most at-grade left turn movements will be eliminated and even blocked by cable or concrete barriers.

Potato/potato, tomato/tomato. In the end Loop 360 will have no at-grade cross traffic or driveway access for most of its length. That's what I would call a freeway.

And TxDOT makes it pretty clear that money is the only thing keeping them from upgrading those last intersections near MoPac and 183.

[Echostatic]

And TxDOT makes it pretty clear that money is the only thing keeping them from upgrading those last intersections near MoPac and 183.

The Loop 360 Program uses an incremental approach based on cost-effectiveness. TxDOT is using limited funds to have the greatest impact on mitigating traffic congestion and increasing safety between US 183 and south MoPac. Currently, the program includes improvements at several signalized intersections along the corridor. Improvements to the remaining intersections are not currently planned or funded, but may still be considered as part of future projects as the program moves forward.

Traffic forecasts predict near-capacity demand during peak hours at both US 183 and south MoPac even after the planned improvements to both highways are complete. While flyovers from Loop 360 would help during off peak hours, more benefit would be gained if signals on the mainlanes were first removed and replaced by overpasses (where the Loop 360 mainlanes go over the cross street) or underpasses (where the Loop 360 mainlanes go under the cross street). Once these improvements are complete, future projects may include adding flyovers to US 183 and south MoPac.

[kernals12]

Are there any plans for turning RM 620 into a freeway to link both parts of SH 45? I know that was in the 1983 Freeway Plan and there are upgrades in the pipeline for RM 620

[MaxConcrete]

Are there any plans for turning RM 620 into a freeway to link both parts of SH 45? I know that was in the 1983 Freeway Plan and there are upgrades in the pipeline for RM 620

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/austin/rm620.html

The latest recommendation is to build a low-capacity freeway (2x2 with frontage roads on a narrow right-of-way) on the north section from 2222 to SH 45. You can see the schematic design in the document "RM 620 Refinement Study Report with Appendices"

TxDOT recently had a meeting for an initial phase of a freeway upgrade on the north end of 620, at Anderson Mill.
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/austin/082621.html

South of 2222 to Quinlan Park Road, the recommendation keeps the same general road configuration but adds two lanes. South of Quinlan Park Road, it stays 2x2 but adds a raised median for safety.

It could take some time to get this built since so many other projects are also in development, especially and including IH-35 Central.

Here is the info south of the Colorado River. The approved plan keeps the existing highway configuration but adds a third lane in each direction and improves intersections. I have noticed that TxDOT has been acquiring right-of-way for this section, so it will probably proceed first.
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/austin/rm620/rm620-sh71-hudson-bend-rd.html

[thisdj78]

Are there any plans for turning RM 620 into a freeway to link both parts of SH 45? I know that was in the 1983 Freeway Plan and there are upgrades in the pipeline for RM 620

It's interesting because the 1983 plan for the outer loop didn't follow the 620 route completely, it spun off just south of 2222, roughly the same route as the yellow line below. Looking at a satellite view today, there still isn't much development in the path. I wonder if any ROW was purchased back then and is still owned by the state:


foto jpg

[kernals12]

Are there any plans for turning RM 620 into a freeway to link both parts of SH 45? I know that was in the 1983 Freeway Plan and there are upgrades in the pipeline for RM 620

It's interesting because the 1983 plan for the outer loop didn't follow the 620 route completely, it spun off just south of 2222, roughly the same route as the yellow line below. Looking at a satellite view today, there still isn't much development in the path. I wonder if any ROW was purchased back then and is still owned by the state:


foto jpg

Those are some very steep grades. I think the only viable route would be along Quinlan Park Road. And now I'm sure everyone's going to chime in saying that NIMBYism will keep that from happening.

[thisdj78]

Are there any plans for turning RM 620 into a freeway to link both parts of SH 45? I know that was in the 1983 Freeway Plan and there are upgrades in the pipeline for RM 620

It's interesting because the 1983 plan for the outer loop didn't follow the 620 route completely, it spun off just south of 2222, roughly the same route as the yellow line below. Looking at a satellite view today, there still isn't much development in the path. I wonder if any ROW was purchased back then and is still owned by the state:


foto jpg

Those are some very steep grades. I think the only viable route would be along Quinlan Park Road. And now I'm sure everyone's going to chime in saying that NIMBYism will keep that from happening.

They likely ran into the same issue when they built Loop 360. It would require some "cutting"  through hills in some parts.

[kernals12]

Are there any plans for turning RM 620 into a freeway to link both parts of SH 45? I know that was in the 1983 Freeway Plan and there are upgrades in the pipeline for RM 620

It's interesting because the 1983 plan for the outer loop didn't follow the 620 route completely, it spun off just south of 2222, roughly the same route as the yellow line below. Looking at a satellite view today, there still isn't much development in the path. I wonder if any ROW was purchased back then and is still owned by the state:


foto jpg

Those are some very steep grades. I think the only viable route would be along Quinlan Park Road. And now I'm sure everyone's going to chime in saying that NIMBYism will keep that from happening.

They likely ran into the same issue when they built Loop 360. It would require some "cutting"  through hills in some parts.

No, this would require cutting through hills in all parts. There's a reason why they call it Hill Country.

[thisdj78]

Are there any plans for turning RM 620 into a freeway to link both parts of SH 45? I know that was in the 1983 Freeway Plan and there are upgrades in the pipeline for RM 620

It's interesting because the 1983 plan for the outer loop didn't follow the 620 route completely, it spun off just south of 2222, roughly the same route as the yellow line below. Looking at a satellite view today, there still isn't much development in the path. I wonder if any ROW was purchased back then and is still owned by the state:


foto jpg

Those are some very steep grades. I think the only viable route would be along Quinlan Park Road. And now I'm sure everyone's going to chime in saying that NIMBYism will keep that from happening.

They likely ran into the same issue when they built Loop 360. It would require some "cutting"  through hills in some parts.

No, this would require cutting through hills in all parts. There's a reason why they call it Hill Country.

No it wouldn't. Believe me, I live here and drive in that area about once a week. Obviously if they built a highway along the route I showed, it would not be that straight. It would follow the bottom contour of hills in some spots and cut through in other spots just as they do for most highways built in hilly areas, including 360. Below is a perfect example...instead of making a steep cut directly through this hill, it mainly goes around it with a few cuts along the north bound lanes: