AARoads Forum

https://www.statesman.com/news/tolls-removed-the-oak-hill-expansion-project-gets-new-life/lGSNtDFvM5q79M3GPi1dwL/ (https://www.statesman.com/news/tolls-removed-the-oak-hill-expansion-project-gets-new-life/lGSNtDFvM5q79M3GPi1dwL/)
http://www.oakhillparkway.com/ (http://www.oakhillparkway.com/)

This project has been delayed seemingly interminably. When I lived in Austin in the late 1990s, right-of-way was cleared and construction seemed imminent. But 20 years later there has been no work on the main project (only some minor improvements at the Y intersection), due to both funding shortages and opposition. In the meantime, the Y intersection has become a traffic nightmare.

The project has been slated to be tolled for a very long time. The good news is that now it is designated as toll-free, but it is not yet fully funded.

There were two remaining options under consideration, A and C, which differed mainly in the alignment west of William Cannon Road, where a wooded area needed to be preserved. The selected A option places the main lanes on elevated structures over the frontage roads.

Quote
Tolls removed, the Oak Hill "˜Y' expansion project gets new life

The Oak Hill tollway project, delayed for a generation, has been rejuvenated – and with the tolls removed.

Last fall's sudden clampdown on toll projects by state officials, it appears, may have laid the groundwork for moving forward a highway expansion that seemingly had stalled. Paying for the project, however, could still be a challenge.

"It wasn't just on the back burner,"  said Terry McCoy, Austin district engineer for Texas Department of Transportation, on Wednesday. "It was off the stove entirely."  Construction could begin as soon as 2020, McCoy said this week.

McCoy said the project already had $62.5 million allocated to it as a toll project, and that his district can put another $125 million into it, for a total of $187.5 million. Still, construction will cost an estimated $400 million, McCoy said, with another $150 million needed for purchasing added right of way, completing final design work, relocating utilities and overseeing construction.

The added right of way will consist of about 75 acres spread across 80 parcels, McCoy said, with an estimated cost of $26.5 million.

"We're still looking to fill that funding gap,"  said McCoy, who added that removing the toll aspect "opens up the funding streams that were not available before."

"I'm hopeful that between now and the time we break ground that we will have cobbled together enough (funding) to do the whole project at once."

The alternative, he said, would be a first phase of building only the frontage roads, followed by the expressway lanes in a second phase. However, it is not clear if such a first phase would improve the clogged traffic on U.S. 290 and Texas 71 in the area....

Its about time!!!! :spin:

Will the new freeway end a short distance West after the "Y" intersection or will it extend at least some significant distance farther West? IMHO the US-290 freeway should be extended at least out to Dripping Springs. They ought to at least be widening US-290 farther West of Austin into a 4 lane frontage road style highway with a median able to hold a future freeway.

Quote from: news articleThe alternative, he said, would be a first phase of building only the frontage roads, followed by the expressway lanes in a second phase. However, it is not clear if such a first phase would improve the clogged traffic on U.S. 290 and Texas 71 in the area...

It's pretty clear that frontage roads alone won't improve the traffic situation. Even if the frontage roads in the first phase were built with 3 lanes in each direction (adding capacity above the existing 4 lane road) the traffic would still back up due to all the at-grade intersections with other unimproved streets as well as lots of driveways.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 04, 2018, 02:21:58 PM
Will the new freeway end a short distance West after the "Y" intersection or will it extend at least some significant distance farther West?

The schematic shows the freeway continuing 2.3 miles west of the SH 71 interchange, ending at South View Road.

That is just barely past another "Y" split at Circle Drive. It's not even halfway to Dripping Springs. Meanwhile the pace of growth and development in Austin is going like gangbusters. The Austin metro has grown past 2 million in population (with the city limits population about to crest 1 million), more than large enough to justify its own East-West freeway corridor. And US-290 is the most obvious path for that corridor West out of Austin towards I-10.

At the very least TX DOT needs to secure ROW for US-290 and a future freeway out to at least Rimrock Trail just short of Dripping Springs. That's where a western expansion of the TX-45 toll road would eventually dovetail into US-290. Then a bypass will have to be mapped out for Dripping Springs.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 05, 2018, 01:45:03 AM
At the very least TX DOT needs to secure ROW for US-290 and a future freeway out to at least Rimrock Trail just short of Dripping Springs.

I agree, but it appears a future freeway extension is not going to happen.

TxDOT is soliciting for a consultant to widen the existing highway to route 12 in Dripping Springs. The documents say the planning is to widen to six lanes with minimal right-of-way acquisition.
https://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/meetings/050318.html (https://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/meetings/050318.html)

Pretty short-sighted on their part not to try to gain any additional right of way. The Austin metro area now has over 2 million people. That's more than enough to justify a full blown east-west Interstate corridor. As the Austin area continues to grow long distance traffic will only continue to increase on the US-290 corridor. The zone between Austin and San Antonio has some of the fastest growing cities in the nation (San Marcos, New Braunfels). With living costs in many parts of the coasts reaching new levels of insanity I expect the growth in Texas to continue at least until living costs in the Lone Star State reach the same absurd levels.

If the pace of development continues like what's happened in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area over the past 20 years those cities will merge together. Then I-10 will desperately need a relief corridor. In the past Texas has done a fairly good job of staying ahead with its roads. Now it's getting harder with an influx of anti-roads groups and lawmakers sabotaging road funding methods in order to pander to voters with tax cuts.

The official request for consultants is now posted for the section west of the imminent project, and it has very good news.
This is project 3503, which is a downloadable zip file. https://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/advertised-contracts.html (https://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/advertised-contracts.html)

The right-of-way is slated to be widened to 420 feet, obviously intended for a future freeway. This will be a major right-of-way event, widening the existing corridor by around 300 feet for 12.8 miles.

From the document DRAFT ENG SRVC.pdf

QuoteUS 290 from RM 12 to RM 1826, a distance of approximately 12.8 miles. The project consists of 2 CSJs: 0113-08-087 & 0113-07-070. US 290 currently consists of a single roadbed carrying two lanes in each direction with a center left turn lane for most of the distance. The proposed improvements are to construct a six lane divided highway with a wide non-paved median. The existing right of way (ROW) for the corridor varies, but is usually less than 150' wide. The proposed highway is anticipated to need a ROW width of 420 feet.

The road out through Fredericksburg is pretty sparse, though they should straighten it to run south of 290 and eliminate the jog

I've never heard of Farm to Market roads being referred to as a "RM" abbreviation. Nevertheless Google Earth Street View imagery shows them listed like that on street name style signs in the Austin area.

I hope TX DOT doesn't run into too many road blocks for acquiring the ROW on US-290 to the FM-12 intersection in Dripping Springs. But I do think they'll have to create some kind of new terrain bypass at that point.

Quote from: texasdogThe road out through Fredericksburg is pretty sparse, though they should straighten it to run south of 290 and eliminate the jog

I'd certainly like to see that big jog eliminated where US-290 joins US-281 and goes North to Johnson City. Getting out to Fredericksburg any the route of any new Interstate quality route would have some interesting choices where to merge with I-10. The most obvious is just improving existing US-290 to its merge point with I-10. That would certainly be the straightest route between I-10 and Fredericksburg. But if this freeway were to bypass Fredericksburg and Johnson City to the South it might put the merge point with I-10 closer to Kerrville. There's quite a bit more development in that town and it might benefit from having a closer freeway quality connection to Austin.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 08, 2018, 11:58:10 AM
I've never heard of Farm to Market roads being referred to as a "RM" abbreviation. Nevertheless Google Earth Street View imagery shows them listed like that on street name style signs in the Austin area.

I think RM means Ranch-to-Market, IIRC.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 08, 2018, 11:58:10 AM
I've never heard of Farm to Market roads being referred to as a "RM" abbreviation. Nevertheless Google Earth Street View imagery shows them listed like that on street name style signs in the Austin area.

I hope TX DOT doesn't run into too many road blocks for acquiring the ROW on US-290 to the FM-12 intersection in Dripping Springs. But I do think they'll have to create some kind of new terrain bypass at that point.

Quote from: texasdogThe road out through Fredericksburg is pretty sparse, though they should straighten it to run south of 290 and eliminate the jog

I'd certainly like to see that big jog eliminated where US-290 joins US-281 and goes North to Johnson City. Getting out to Fredericksburg any the route of any new Interstate quality route would have some interesting choices where to merge with I-10. The most obvious is just improving existing US-290 to its merge point with I-10. That would certainly be the straightest route between I-10 and Fredericksburg. But if this freeway were to bypass Fredericksburg and Johnson City to the South it might put the merge point with I-10 closer to Kerrville. There's quite a bit more development in that town and it might benefit from having a closer freeway quality connection to Austin.

heading eastbound I would run it just on the south side of Johnson City with a freeway interchange at 281, then have it angle SE back into where 290 is now

Quote from: mvak36 on August 08, 2018, 04:41:27 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 08, 2018, 11:58:10 AM
I've never heard of Farm to Market roads being referred to as a "RM" abbreviation. Nevertheless Google Earth Street View imagery shows them listed like that on street name style signs in the Austin area.

I think RM means Ranch-to-Market, IIRC.

It's RM in the Hill Country, FM pretty much everywhere else.

Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 09, 2018, 11:28:05 AM

Quote from: mvak36 on August 08, 2018, 04:41:27 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 08, 2018, 11:58:10 AM
I've never heard of Farm to Market roads being referred to as a "RM" abbreviation. Nevertheless Google Earth Street View imagery shows them listed like that on street name style signs in the Austin area.

I think RM means Ranch-to-Market, IIRC.

It's RM in the Hill Country, FM pretty much everywhere else.

...with a few exceptions to both here and there.

Quote from: Cameron918 on August 27, 2018, 12:24:17 PM
There is a brand new medical building in the right of way, the building would have to be knocked down and replaced in a new location, or the road design would need to be changed. It's just a preliminary drawing.

Are you referring to the single-floor building on the north side of US 290 between South View Road and Thunderbird Road? (It looks like it was just being completed in the Google maps view dated Nov 2016).

According to the 2017 schematics, the building appears to be just outside the planned right-of-way, but nearly all the parking lot would need to be taken. If the parking lot can't be relocated and the building must be cleared, the cost should not be prohibitive.

But, it does seem like a case of mismanagement to let that building be built, if it is in fact the new building you are referring to.

TxDOT is soliciting for a general engineering consultant for this project, which is normally done when construction is fairly imminent (within one year). So this is a very good sign that this project will *finally* begin construction in the near future.

https://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/meetings/102618.html (https://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/meetings/102618.html)

Quote
The purpose of the pre-solicitation meeting is to inform the consultant community of the upcoming solicitation to procure one general engineering consultant (GEC) specific deliverable contract for US 290 at Oak Hill Parkway for the Austin District.

Also, the Texas Transportation is slated to provide authorization to seek proposals for making this a design-build project. It usually takes around a 9-12 months for the design-build selection process, but since this project is relatively simple compared to most design-build projects, it could go faster.

See item 8: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2018/0927/agenda.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2018/0927/agenda.pdf)

Quote
Consider authorizing the department to issue a request for qualifications to develop, design, construct, and potentially maintain the Oak Hill Parkway Project, consisting of non-tolled improvements along US 290 from approximately Circle Drive to Loop 1 and non-tolled improvements along SH 71 from US 290 to Silvermine Drive, and including the reconstruction of the US 290 and SH 71 interchange, in Austin and southwest Travis County (MO)

Video, item 8
http://txdot.swagit.com/play/09262018-892 (http://txdot.swagit.com/play/09262018-892)

The project has been authorized for design build. However, the proposal submission process is going to take a long time - more than a year. The project is not particularly complicated so the long proposal period is unexpected. Maybe more time is needed for right-of-way acquisition, and they are giving proposers an extra-long period while ROW is acquired.

Estimated cost: $467 million
RFP Issuance: Dec 2018
Proposal deadline: September 2019
Contract Award: October 2019
Work starts: 2020
Completion: early 2024

2024? It would be nice if TX DOT could simultaneously get the ball rolling for other improvements West of that project area along or near the US-290 corridor. The Austin metro is big enough to justify its own East-West Interstate quality corridor (even if it terminates at I-10 on both ends). The region is adding population at a dramatic pace. The question is how best to push a new superhighway out to I-10. The Oak Hill Y project looks like it will now be built toll free. But what about a new highway going the rest of the way to I-10?

Environmental groups have filed a lawsuit against the project

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190730/environmental-groups-file-lawsuits-to-halt-oak-hill-y-highway-expansion (https://www.statesman.com/news/20190730/environmental-groups-file-lawsuits-to-halt-oak-hill-y-highway-expansion)

This will probably result in a delay at the very minimum. This project has been needed for more than 20 years, when the adjacent section of freeway opened around 1996, and has been studied relentlessly for the last 10+ years, with the approved design specifically preserving some old-growth trees which are in the mainlane path. (The main lanes are being built over the frontage roads in that area.)

It's Austin, so I suppose we should not be surprised.

Quote
Environmental groups file lawsuits to halt Oak Hill "˜Y' highway expansion

Austin environmental groups filed dueling federal lawsuits against the Texas Department of Transportation this week, aiming to halt or rework an Oak Hill highway expansion they fear will be environmentally damaging.

The Save Our Springs Alliance on Monday sued both TxDOT and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, saying the proposed expansion of the U.S. 290 and Texas 71 interchange could threaten local salamanders. The suit accuses the entities of abandoning due diligence in their environmental mitigation planning. The alliance fears runoff will increase and harm the endangered Austin Blind Salamander or Barton Springs Salamander, according to the suit.

The alliance is asking a judge to halt the Oak Hill project until TxDOT's compliance with the Endangered Species Act can be proven in more detail.

...


The Save Our Springs Alliance has been vocally opposed to the highway expansion in general, arguing that instead of a highway expansion, the region should build a secondary meandering boulevard offset by parks. The alliance also has sued in the past to try to stop construction on MoPac and Texas 45 Southwest.

Robert Tobiansky, a former transportation committee chairman for the Oak Hill Association of Neighborhoods, lives near the Y and said something must be done about the bottleneck there.

The alliance, Tobiansky said, perpetually tries to halt any change in the city.

"They're basically a no-growth group, and they don't want anything built and they just can't get over that this highway is going to get built,"  he said. "I've been working for the last five years to get this highway built. ... The transportation is needed."

Save Our Springs BS again, nothing new in Southwest Austin. Shouldn't stop the project but it might delay it a year or so.

Quote from: MaxConcrete on July 30, 2019, 11:15:03 PM
they fear will be environmentally damaging.

could threaten local salamanders.

harm the endangered Austin Blind Salamander or Barton Springs Salamander

They aren't concerned with any of that. It's just excuses they come up to halt any and every project. Just another RE/T (Radical Environmentalist / Transit) group doing its dirty work. They'll lose in the courts.

Have anyone been to SW Austin lately? SOS has failed miserably in even denting growth on the west side. SOS is so toothless, the delay will be less than a year.

Most of the new development out in SW Austin is very spread out with lots of open space, thanks to them. But they (fortunately) haven't stopped construction entirely. SH45SW got built, after all.

I still think it's odd how the new section of the TX-45 toll road is being built on such a narrow alignment.

Most of the development on the SW side of Austin is indeed pretty spread out. However, new choke points are building up along US-290 to the West of the proposed freeway project's end at Circle Drive. The Belterra Village shopping center is one example. I don't think property set backs for the new restaurants and other stores going up near US-290 are wide enough to allow any future expansion of the existing road. Nearby both North and South of US-290 new residential developments are densely packing in a bunch of McMansions. That takes the option of a new terrain alignment off the table.

I think it's pretty critical for US-290 to operate as a Western gateway for the Austin area, with the TX-45 toll road connecting to it somehow.

The proposed freeway extension of US-290 would eliminate 9 traffic signal intersections for main line traffic. There are 16 more traffic signaled intersections along US-290 from the end of the proposed freeway extension to the West side of Dripping Springs.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 31, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
I still think it's odd how the new section of the TX-45 toll road is being built on such a narrow alignment.

It's due to the environmental features and the hilly terrain. Narrow footprint = less impact. It's not flat and wide open like how the other sections are.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 31, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
I still think it's odd how the new section of the TX-45 toll road is being built on such a narrow alignment.

It's not "being built," it's open and has been for two months. The narrow alignment was to please the environmentalists, unsurprisingly. But they did construct SH45 sustainably:

QuoteTo ensure the project is constructed using the highest standards in environmental protection, the Mobility Authority will be using a combination of structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs include:

• Permeable Friction Course (PFC) pavement


• Water quality ponds


• Vegetated controls such as grassy swales


• Vegetated filter strips


• Hazardous materials traps located at all creeks, waterways, and culverted drainage ways

In addition, to protect the extensive karst features in the area, 90 percent of the project will be constructed on top of fill and will not require excavation.

from www.sh45sw.com (http://www.sh45sw.com)

Quote from: Echostatic on July 31, 2019, 11:38:45 AM
Most of the new development out in SW Austin is very spread out with lots of open space, thanks to them. But they (fortunately) haven't stopped construction entirely. SH45SW got built, after all.

Are they responsible for the 25% rule? You can only develop  25% of your property and leave the rest for green space.

Quote from: longhorn on August 01, 2019, 12:30:10 AM
Are they responsible for the 25% rule? You can only develop  25% of your property and leave the rest for green space.

Save Our Springs (the organization) is responsible for the 1992 Save Our Springs Act, which contains the 25% rule over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 31, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
I still think it's odd how the new section of the TX-45 toll road is being built on such a narrow alignment.

Most of the development on the SW side of Austin is indeed pretty spread out. However, new choke points are building up along US-290 to the West of the proposed freeway project's end at Circle Drive. The Belterra Village shopping center is one example. I don't think property set backs for the new restaurants and other stores going up near US-290 are wide enough to allow any future expansion of the existing road. Nearby both North and South of US-290 new residential developments are densely packing in a bunch of McMansions. That takes the option of a new terrain alignment off the table.

I think it's pretty critical for US-290 to operate as a Western gateway for the Austin area, with the TX-45 toll road connecting to it somehow.

The proposed freeway extension of US-290 would eliminate 9 traffic signal intersections for main line traffic. There are 16 more traffic signaled intersections along US-290 from the end of the proposed freeway extension to the West side of Dripping Springs.

Yes it is a major gateway and part of the interstate proposal I have using SH-71 east of Austin and US-290 west of Austin to complete a I-35W/35E situation for San Antonio and Austin, were I-10 is 35W and I-18 (which is what I call my alignment) will be 35E.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 02, 2019, 12:29:55 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 31, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
I still think it's odd how the new section of the TX-45 toll road is being built on such a narrow alignment.

Most of the development on the SW side of Austin is indeed pretty spread out. However, new choke points are building up along US-290 to the West of the proposed freeway project's end at Circle Drive. The Belterra Village shopping center is one example. I don't think property set backs for the new restaurants and other stores going up near US-290 are wide enough to allow any future expansion of the existing road. Nearby both North and South of US-290 new residential developments are densely packing in a bunch of McMansions. That takes the option of a new terrain alignment off the table.

I think it's pretty critical for US-290 to operate as a Western gateway for the Austin area, with the TX-45 toll road connecting to it somehow.

The proposed freeway extension of US-290 would eliminate 9 traffic signal intersections for main line traffic. There are 16 more traffic signaled intersections along US-290 from the end of the proposed freeway extension to the West side of Dripping Springs.

Yes it is a major gateway and part of the interstate proposal I have using SH-71 east of Austin and US-290 west of Austin to complete a I-35W/35E situation for San Antonio and Austin, were I-10 is 35W and I-18 (which is what I call my alignment) will be 35E.

What is the argument against the corridor being named I-12?

Quote from: thisdj78 on August 02, 2019, 01:52:37 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 02, 2019, 12:29:55 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 31, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
I still think it's odd how the new section of the TX-45 toll road is being built on such a narrow alignment.

Most of the development on the SW side of Austin is indeed pretty spread out. However, new choke points are building up along US-290 to the West of the proposed freeway project's end at Circle Drive. The Belterra Village shopping center is one example. I don't think property set backs for the new restaurants and other stores going up near US-290 are wide enough to allow any future expansion of the existing road. Nearby both North and South of US-290 new residential developments are densely packing in a bunch of McMansions. That takes the option of a new terrain alignment off the table.

I think it's pretty critical for US-290 to operate as a Western gateway for the Austin area, with the TX-45 toll road connecting to it somehow.

The proposed freeway extension of US-290 would eliminate 9 traffic signal intersections for main line traffic. There are 16 more traffic signaled intersections along US-290 from the end of the proposed freeway extension to the West side of Dripping Springs.

Yes it is a major gateway and part of the interstate proposal I have using SH-71 east of Austin and US-290 west of Austin to complete a I-35W/35E situation for San Antonio and Austin, were I-10 is 35W and I-18 (which is what I call my alignment) will be 35E.

What is the argument against the corridor being named I-12?

I-12 already exists in Louisiana. I think this discussion is more suited for fictional highways, not here.

^^^^^I-10S and I-10N^^^^^

Quote from: longhorn on August 02, 2019, 04:15:20 PM
^^^^^I-10S and I-10N^^^^^

I would love it.

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 02, 2019, 02:00:42 PM

Quote from: thisdj78 on August 02, 2019, 01:52:37 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 02, 2019, 12:29:55 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 31, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
I still think it's odd how the new section of the TX-45 toll road is being built on such a narrow alignment.

Most of the development on the SW side of Austin is indeed pretty spread out. However, new choke points are building up along US-290 to the West of the proposed freeway project's end at Circle Drive. The Belterra Village shopping center is one example. I don't think property set backs for the new restaurants and other stores going up near US-290 are wide enough to allow any future expansion of the existing road. Nearby both North and South of US-290 new residential developments are densely packing in a bunch of McMansions. That takes the option of a new terrain alignment off the table.

I think it's pretty critical for US-290 to operate as a Western gateway for the Austin area, with the TX-45 toll road connecting to it somehow.

The proposed freeway extension of US-290 would eliminate 9 traffic signal intersections for main line traffic. There are 16 more traffic signaled intersections along US-290 from the end of the proposed freeway extension to the West side of Dripping Springs.

Yes it is a major gateway and part of the interstate proposal I have using SH-71 east of Austin and US-290 west of Austin to complete a I-35W/35E situation for San Antonio and Austin, were I-10 is 35W and I-18 (which is what I call my alignment) will be 35E.

What is the argument against the corridor being named I-12?

I-12 already exists in Louisiana. I think this discussion is more suited for fictional highways, not here.

Last thing I'll note on it is that I-74 shows up in different states non-continuously and I don't believe there are any plans to connect them, unless they ran it concurrently with other interstates to complete part of the gap....which in theory could also be done with the 290 corridor. I-10/12 from Baton Rouge to Beaumont until it splits again.

Quote from: thisdj78 on August 02, 2019, 04:30:00 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 02, 2019, 02:00:42 PM

Quote from: thisdj78 on August 02, 2019, 01:52:37 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 02, 2019, 12:29:55 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 31, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
I still think it's odd how the new section of the TX-45 toll road is being built on such a narrow alignment.

Most of the development on the SW side of Austin is indeed pretty spread out. However, new choke points are building up along US-290 to the West of the proposed freeway project's end at Circle Drive. The Belterra Village shopping center is one example. I don't think property set backs for the new restaurants and other stores going up near US-290 are wide enough to allow any future expansion of the existing road. Nearby both North and South of US-290 new residential developments are densely packing in a bunch of McMansions. That takes the option of a new terrain alignment off the table.

I think it's pretty critical for US-290 to operate as a Western gateway for the Austin area, with the TX-45 toll road connecting to it somehow.

The proposed freeway extension of US-290 would eliminate 9 traffic signal intersections for main line traffic. There are 16 more traffic signaled intersections along US-290 from the end of the proposed freeway extension to the West side of Dripping Springs.

Yes it is a major gateway and part of the interstate proposal I have using SH-71 east of Austin and US-290 west of Austin to complete a I-35W/35E situation for San Antonio and Austin, were I-10 is 35W and I-18 (which is what I call my alignment) will be 35E.

What is the argument against the corridor being named I-12?

I-12 already exists in Louisiana. I think this discussion is more suited for fictional highways, not here.

Last thing I'll note on it is that I-74 shows up in different states non-continuously and I don't believe there are any plans to connect them, unless they ran it concurrently with other interstates to complete part of the gap....which in theory could also be done with the 290 corridor. I-10/12 from Baton Rouge to Beaumont until it splits again.

I-74 was intended to be connected indeed, it was to follow I-77 through Virginia, but follow on new location in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio.

Realistically though, it's never going to happen. IMO the North Carolina routing needs to be decommissioned and given different numbers. The short stretch that overlaps I-77 near the Virginia border needs to be decommissioned, the stretch between I-77 and I-73 needs to be renumbered as an I-x77 or I-x73, the overlap portion with I-73 wouldn't need new numbering - it would just be I-73, and the portion between Rockingham and Wilmington would be decommissioned in favor of a Wilmington to I-26 / Asheville interstate concept - I-38 or something alike.

I just drove through the Y today, it's a mess. Traffic was backed up a few miles onto the freeway from the first light, and it wasn't even rush hour yet

Quote from: ethanhopkin14Yes it is a major gateway and part of the interstate proposal I have using SH-71 east of Austin and US-290 west of Austin to complete a I-35W/35E situation for San Antonio and Austin, were I-10 is 35W and I-18 (which is what I call my alignment) will be 35E.

That doesn't make any sense. US-290 is a East-West corridor. Not a North-South corridor, which a I-35E/I-35W split would define.

The I-18 idea doesn't make much sense since there is now a (stupid and needless) I-14 corridor established a short drive to the North.

I'm in the camp of those who think the US-290 corridor between Houston and Austin should be developed into a segment of Interstate 12. Further, I think I-12 should run from roughly the US-290 junction with I-10 in West Texas thru Fredericksburg, then Austin, then to the Northern Houston metro, utilizing part of the Grand Parkway, then running concurrent with US-90 into Beaumont.

We already have separate, duplicate instances of Interstate highways in the system: I-69, I-74, I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, I-88. What the hell is two disconnected segments of I-12 going to hurt? Considering the long term prospect of needs in the highway system the US-190 corridor North of I-10 in Louisiana as well as the short existing segment of I-12 could serve as a vital relief route and hurricane evacuation route for traffic off I-10. A whole bunch of I-10 in Louisiana is built up on really long bridges over swamp land. Upgrading the US-190 corridor a little farther North could provide a good bit of relief if major parts of I-10 had to be rebuilt for some reason, such as a serious hurricane land fall.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 03, 2019, 12:46:51 AM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14Yes it is a major gateway and part of the interstate proposal I have using SH-71 east of Austin and US-290 west of Austin to complete a I-35W/35E situation for San Antonio and Austin, were I-10 is 35W and I-18 (which is what I call my alignment) will be 35E.

That doesn't make any sense. US-290 is a East-West corridor. Not a North-South corridor, which a I-35E/I-35W split would define.

I think he was just comparing to the "split and return"  nature of 35W/35E vs the direction they run.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 03, 2019, 12:46:51 AM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14Yes it is a major gateway and part of the interstate proposal I have using SH-71 east of Austin and US-290 west of Austin to complete a I-35W/35E situation for San Antonio and Austin, were I-10 is 35W and I-18 (which is what I call my alignment) will be 35E.

That doesn't make any sense. US-290 is a East-West corridor. Not a North-South corridor, which a I-35E/I-35W split would define.

The I-18 idea doesn't make much sense since there is now a (stupid and needless) I-14 corridor established a short drive to the North.

I'm in the camp of those who think the US-290 corridor between Houston and Austin should be developed into a segment of Interstate 12. Further, I think I-12 should run from roughly the US-290 junction with I-10 in West Texas thru Fredericksburg, then Austin, then to the Northern Houston metro, utilizing part of the Grand Parkway, then running concurrent with US-90 into Beaumont.

We already have separate, duplicate instances of Interstate highways in the system: I-69, I-74, I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, I-88. What the hell is two disconnected segments of I-12 going to hurt? Considering the long term prospect of needs in the highway system the US-190 corridor North of I-10 in Louisiana as well as the short existing segment of I-12 could serve as a vital relief route and hurricane evacuation route for traffic off I-10. A whole bunch of I-10 in Louisiana is built up on really long bridges over swamp land. Upgrading the US-190 corridor a little farther North could provide a good bit of relief if major parts of I-10 had to be rebuilt for some reason, such as a serious hurricane land fall.

Yes I was referring to the Interstate along SH-71 and US 290 to be a split and return to the mainline for I-10 mush like the I-35E/35W split leaves and returns, giving long haul traffic two options for the through route. 

I am very aware of the multiple interstate routes with the same number, but in all of those cases, the two routes exist so far away from each other it's not an issue.  Take I-76; the western version is in the Mountain Time Zone where the eastern version is 2 time zones away.  That's a long enough distance that most traffic won't encounter both instances on the same drive, and the ones that do, so much time will go by that the second time they see I-76, they will have forgotten about the previous incarnation. 

I am not a fan of the multiple interstate routes with the same number, and I am really not a fan of doing it in neighboring states, in the length of a time that you can encounter both in the course of 4 or 5 hours.  I think AASHTO might agree with me on that one as well, due to the fact they are big on reducing driver confusion.  I don't think it's worth having two separate I-12's that close just so it can fit a grid that has errors like I-11 east of I-15 and I-82 north of I-84 just to name a few off the top of my head.  I love the grid, I love how simple it is, but I am not going to want something as stupid as a 400 mile co-siging of I-10 and I-12 just because it has to fit the grid, which has it's flaws all over the place.

As for the US 290 east of town routing, most Austinites agree the best route to Houston from Austin is SH-71 and I-10 NOT US 290. To put it another way, US 290 sucks.  SH-71/I-10 is more direct and upgrading it has a double impact.  It upgrades the most direct Houston-Austin corridor (which by the way would be less work and $$ to do so than 290) plus gives long haul traffic the aforementioned I-35E/35W convenience, albeit being effectively I-10S/10N (with I-10 being your option to go through San Antonio, the long way[like I-35E through Dallas] and I-18 being your option to go through Austin [like I-35W through Ft. Worth]).  I like to look at it more like connecting Austin to New Orleans and El Paso, not just Houston to Austin.  Putting Austin on the main line I-10 corridor is huge.  You turn 290 into an interstate and its blocked in between Austin and Houston with nowhere to go.  Yes you can co-sign it down I-35 through downtown Austin like the current routing of US 290 to get to US 290 west of Austin, but everyone loves doing that!!!  I would rather have my fingernails pulled out.

I came up with my I-18 idea back long before I-14 was signed.  Seeing how I don't think it will go much further west than it currently is in course of two generations, I am perfectly fine with I-18 going through Fredericksburg. 

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/wvNu0PuJ5n1RrvqGm0KZvp0nbeQqte57Y5B0HfEjD4UN1_ZV-qwFCUdyewUQp3CQVtQTG97fDwxONccv8mjmCqJGtfPGVv9TiMVSnQzB7OJ3UM2TZnbVcRB2LH1uRVUvfrYAcNK-CCYAh5Xeb87EYNw0agS2-bObbOahWpSS5I87Jja9ZD74UXTCQcFxLRFiTbdE4N5q4m5NYxN5VhLS5kTC7lxGQvrTMDdycW2FoK6IXcHduMtBviq1Tkwqca92P_DNuRo6C4c2xpDTrHkFpB9CsXs9NgAI28UkrYCkuO9U0ron4GIS87Xh6ITndhGD1Xj33_TXjka_emlpVd6OAf4cLUNOMXsSV6KwzLoAN-u-tQhc8Pws8ndSPKySPL8OKhSqo_ZzDCpWsKCrB1U4S9wCprL8W6HxoQ5NO2fan6vWvnfUNjCSaJRPJRQESW1cvCFnFOnh9AvuDt6f7cU_Dh8QBf3-XZG7GOS3gwukfMz9rMT3PRXJzsAcBDBHifSKKdITxlgHER4X18LYqRi-u7Txp-lvbd6yOxPKb5fn0kw5wXP-HtbXhduCd_Qzh9ZBoE6q5tUXigupLMqU3XLYFvbiPvetqUCnlA4rJofI0CVL4q53l3wXRDC4YvJfp_ETe47fQXeSJccrT8O1EloN4xz-U2FGPA=w666-h888-no)

I can make legit looking highways signs at my work place. But a custom made highway sign does nothing to legitimize a fictional highway route.

Regarding duplication of I-12, the existing route in Louisiana is only about 84 miles long. Honestly the route is hardly worth carrying a 2 digit designation. Baton Rouge and Houston are about 280 miles apart. I think that's a far enough gap to avoid any confusion. The only real way duplicates of I-12 could get confusing is if the Texas version of it began in Beaumont and the existing I-12 in LA was extended West along US-190.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14As for the US 290 east of town routing, most Austinites agree the best route to Houston from Austin is SH-71 and I-10 NOT US 290. To put it another way, US 290 sucks. SH-71/I-10 is more direct and upgrading it has a double impact.

TX-71 is only a more direct route for Austin traffic headed to central Houston or points South. Much of the growth in both the Austin and Houston areas is happening on the North side of both metros. US-290 is the main link between both those growing regions. Even if TX-71 was fully upgraded to Interstate standards there would still be a lot of traffic taking US-290.

The only reason why TX-71 would cost less to upgrade than US-290 is because it hits I-10 in Columbus, TX nearly 50 miles West of the Grand Parkway. Once on I-10 that long haul traffic coming thru Austin is pretty much stuck there, in increasingly heavy traffic, going through the center of Houston. US-290 patches more direct into both the North sides of the Grand Parkway and Loop 8 beltway.

Quote from: Echostatic on August 01, 2019, 05:04:28 PM

Quote from: longhorn on August 01, 2019, 12:30:10 AM
Are they responsible for the 25% rule? You can only develop  25% of your property and leave the rest for green space.

Save Our Springs (the organization) is responsible for the 1992 Save Our Springs Act, which contains the 25% rule over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone.

QuoteSOS ordinance is applicable to Barton Springs Zone of the Edwards Aquifer, a small part of the overall watershed southwest of the city, limiting development in that zone to a maximum of 15% to 25% impervious cover, and mandating that stormwater runoff be as clean after development as before.

https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2002-08-09/99632/

The "Barton Springs Salamander" is probably just a Salamander.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 05, 2019, 12:04:51 PM
I can make legit looking highways signs at my work place. But a custom made highway sign does nothing to legitimize a fictional highway route.

Regarding duplication of I-12, the existing route in Louisiana is only about 84 miles long. Honestly the route is hardly worth carrying a 2 digit designation. Baton Rouge and Houston are about 280 miles apart. I think that's a far enough gap to avoid any confusion. The only real way duplicates of I-12 could get confusing is if the Texas version of it began in Beaumont and the existing I-12 in LA was extended West along US-190.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14As for the US 290 east of town routing, most Austinites agree the best route to Houston from Austin is SH-71 and I-10 NOT US 290. To put it another way, US 290 sucks. SH-71/I-10 is more direct and upgrading it has a double impact.

TX-71 is only a more direct route for Austin traffic headed to central Houston or points South. Much of the growth in both the Austin and Houston areas is happening on the North side of both metros. US-290 is the main link between both those growing regions. Even if TX-71 was fully upgraded to Interstate standards there would still be a lot of traffic taking US-290.

The only reason why TX-71 would cost less to upgrade than US-290 is because it hits I-10 in Columbus, TX nearly 50 miles West of the Grand Parkway. Once on I-10 that long haul traffic coming thru Austin is pretty much stuck there, in increasingly heavy traffic, going through the center of Houston. US-290 patches more direct into both the North sides of the Grand Parkway and Loop 8 beltway.

I just thought my sign was neat, and that I have it hanging in my garage.  That was all.  I didn't say, "I had a sign made so now it must have that number!!!"  I thought it was something we all liked. 

I live in Dripping Springs and work in downtown Austin.  My commute absolutely sucks.  I always find it very insulting when someone says the growth is happening north and not south.  There are plenty of new houses in Kyle, Buda and Dripping Springs going up daily and lots of high schools that used to be little rural schools that are now big time powerhouses in the course of 8 years.  There is plenty of growth in Austin, both north and south.  To be honest I'd rather drive in Georgetown or Round Rock than to sit on the flyover bridge from eastbound Ben White to south bound I-35 then proceed to Kyle on I-35 from there.  That has gotten to the point where it's horrible. 

As for your comment, "Once on I-10 that long haul traffic coming thru Austin is pretty much stuck there", that's the way things currently are.  You say that like it would be a new thing, yet a lot of people chose that route to go to Houston still, even with all that.  add to that the project to convert I-10 to 6 lanes and that will help mobility there.  US 290 is a good corridor to upgrade to an Interstate, I just feel upgrading the SH 71 corridor is better for the Interstate Highway System, not just those two towns.  I keep looking the big picture.  You are looking at the Houston-Austin corridor where I am focusing on the Beaumont-Austin-El Paso corridor.

The point is to finally connect the two biggest cities not connected by the interstate highway system.  Austin and Houston (downtown mind you), not Georgetown to The Woodlands.

I live in the Round Rock area and drive to Houston about once a month to visit relatives in the southeast part of the metro area. I use Waze and it's about 50/50 on whether it gives me 290 or 71 was the fastest route. Factors are based on time of day, construction traffic on 290/Northwest Freeway, SH130 or I-10 (around Brookshire).

My preference though is 71 because overall it's less stop lights and slowdowns. I would have to be going somewhere north of Beltway 8N before considering 290 (if Waze tells me 71 is only slightly quicker).

Yes, most of the residential metro growth is occurring north, but majority of the industry, commerce and attractions of the city are near I-10 and south. I'd even venture to say that majority of the area population is in and around I-10 and south....the population is pretty dense from downtown on down to the southwest side.

I'm sure there are other metros in the country that are linked by a not-so-direct interstate route but with direct surface highway routes. Having 71 be the preferred route wouldn't be perfect but I think it would meet the needs of majority people traveling to Houston from Austin or vice versa.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14I live in Dripping Springs and work in downtown Austin.  My commute absolutely sucks.  I always find it very insulting when someone says the growth is happening north and not south.  There are plenty of new houses in Kyle, Buda and Dripping Springs going up daily and lots of high schools that used to be little rural schools that are now big time powerhouses in the course of 8 years.

I didn't say growth wasn't happening at all in the Southern parts of Austin. Nevertheless there is more growth happening to the North. One reason is there is more room to build new housing and businesses in that areas. The terrain out West of Austin is much more hilly.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14As for your comment, "Once on I-10 that long haul traffic coming thru Austin is pretty much stuck there", that's the way things currently are.

And the traffic on I-10 would get even worse if the primary link between Austin and Houston was via an improved TX-71 while leaving US-290 as-is.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14You say that like it would be a new thing, yet a lot of people chose that route to go to Houston still, even with all that.  add to that the project to convert I-10 to 6 lanes and that will help mobility there.  US 290 is a good corridor to upgrade to an Interstate, I just feel upgrading the SH 71 corridor is better for the Interstate Highway System, not just those two towns.  I keep looking the big picture.  You are looking at the Houston-Austin corridor where I am focusing on the Beaumont-Austin-El Paso corridor.

I'm not opposed to converting TX-71 into a 100% Interstate quality route between Austin and Columbus, TX. Nevertheless the US-290 corridor needs to be upgraded regardless of what happens with TX-71. I'm looking at more than just a link between Houston and Austin. I'm all for upgrading the US-290 corridor to Interstate standards out West of Austin through Fredericksburg and all the way to I-10. I also think it would be great to upgrade US-90 between Beaumont and the Grand Parkway. That combination would effectively give Austin its own 350 mile long East-West Interstate quality route that bypasses San Antonio and the busiest parts of Houston.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2020/0430/6a-presentation.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2020/0430/6a-presentation.pdf)

MASSIVE cost overrun in recommended bid for design-build construction

2020 UTP project listing cost: $406 million
I seem to recall recent estimates were somewhat higher, maybe $440 million
Low Bid: $677 million, 67% over UTP listed cost

The recent $1.7 billion LBJ East design-build also had a major overrun, around $300 million, but percent-wise that was only around 20%.

The presentation and associated discussion (I tuned in to the meeting) did not mention why it is so far over budget. They did mention that they are going to try to work it out financially, and it may require coming back to the commission for additional commission action. Apparently they have until August to finalize the contract.

In these design-build competitions, minimal or zero information about the competing bids is released. All we get for this bid is the rankings, with no financial info or proposal score. The transparency to the public is very poor, much less than the regular bidding process.

Also, it has been standard practice for TxDOT to pay losing bidders for bid preparation costs. I think this can lead to all bidders bidding high, since their rationale may be "There's no risk for me since I'm being paid for preparing this proposal, so I'll put in a high bid since it won't cost me anything and there's a chance I'll win." If all bidders use that rationale, this is what can happen.

Needless to say, I have soured on the Design-Build process. At the minimum, TxDOT is going to need to make the process more transparent to satisfy folks like me.

I strongly suspect some people are heavily padding the bills so they can move to more wealthy zip codes and drive more expensive vehicles. Shouldn't everybody have a 5000 square foot home and a $100,000 pickup truck? The gravy train is about to derail off the tracks. It's obscene what road building costs in the United States now. We might as well go back to dirt roads and horse-drawn carriages with this kind of price gouging.

EDIT:
I wonder how well these clowns are going to be able to continue making such insane price bids for highway building contracts when various agencies are completely cancelling bid lettings as a result of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The US government added a giant amount of debt to its balance sheet in very rapid order. The individual states are not exactly swimming with money. Maybe these firms who do road building (and price gouge the crap out of taxpayers) might want to take note of what's going on with oil. The same kind of "demand destruction" could end up happening to their line of work too. If the government goes too far in debt they'll just cancel every road project on the books.

Eminent domain has been approved by the City of Austin for the needed properties along the corridor.

https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2021/04/council-barely-oks-eminent-domain-for-u-s-290-expansion/ (https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2021/04/council-barely-oks-eminent-domain-for-u-s-290-expansion/)

Construction is planned to begin in Mid-2021.

(https://www.oakhillparkway.com/upload/files/multimedia/img/OHP_CartoonMap_CRC_Segments_.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/LOTCEsn.png)

Quote from: Echostatic on April 13, 2021, 10:42:41 AM
Eminent domain has been approved by the City of Austin for the needed properties along the corridor.

https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2021/04/council-barely-oks-eminent-domain-for-u-s-290-expansion/ (https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2021/04/council-barely-oks-eminent-domain-for-u-s-290-expansion/)

Construction is planned to begin in Mid-2021.

(https://www.oakhillparkway.com/upload/files/multimedia/img/OHP_CartoonMap_CRC_Segments_.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/LOTCEsn.png)

:awesomeface:

Quote from: kernals12 on April 14, 2021, 09:53:30 PM

Quote from: Echostatic on April 13, 2021, 10:42:41 AM
Eminent domain has been approved by the City of Austin for the needed properties along the corridor.

https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2021/04/council-barely-oks-eminent-domain-for-u-s-290-expansion/ (https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2021/04/council-barely-oks-eminent-domain-for-u-s-290-expansion/)

Construction is planned to begin in Mid-2021.

(https://www.oakhillparkway.com/upload/files/multimedia/img/OHP_CartoonMap_CRC_Segments_.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/LOTCEsn.png)

:awesomeface:

So did the ground breaking ceremony break their ground?  I mean, this is the latest in a bout 20 different timelines I have seen.  Latest word I heard was construction was supposed to start a year ago. 

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 17, 2021, 03:55:34 PM

So did the ground breaking ceremony break their ground?  I mean, this is the latest in a bout 20 different timelines I have seen.  Latest word I heard was construction was supposed to start a year ago. 

There is no mention of ground breaking actually occurring on the official web site, which says
https://www.oakhillparkway.com/ (https://www.oakhillparkway.com/)

QuoteCrews are performing pre-construction activities along the Oak Hill Parkway corridor in advance of the official project groundbreaking in mid-2021.

I also expect to see the groundbreaking mentioned on the TxDOT web site or by the TxDOT Transportation Commission, and I have not seen any mention.

I drove through the area on June 21, going left from William Cannon and then going northwest on SH 71. There was no visible construction underway, and no visible pre-construction activity.

Traffic is really bad in that area, even in the middle of the day when I drove through. And it's not just at the Oak Hill Y. US 290 is a mess going west toward Dripping Springs, with a large mid-day back up at US 290 and RM 12 in Dripping Springs. Pity the folks who have to deal with that area every day. TxDOT is studying the corridor but there has been no activity on the study site in nearly 2 years.
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/austin/090919.html (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/austin/090919.html)

Like I've been saying, US-290 going West out of the Austin metro needs to be upgraded to a full blown Interstate. At the very least TX DOT needs to be securing ROW for such a corridor.

The planned freeway upgrade thru the TX-71 "Y" westward to Circle Drive would be a good start. But what is really needed is a super highway corridor all the way thru or around Dripping Springs and all the way West to the US-281 corridor.

The Austin metro area has already been seeing rapid growth for the couple decades. I'm fairly certain the city limits population has breached the 1 million barrier and then some. The region is attracting major companies, both in terms of offices and manufacturing plants. The region is also attracting a lot of celebrities. Austin's "fashionable" image may exaggerate an already rapid growth situation. Despite some of the anti roads/freeway rhetoric coming from some policy makers within (and outside) Austin the situation with traffic will go from already pretty bad to downright desperate and dangerous. They have to do something. US-290 is a major East-West arterial that is overdue for improvement both East and West of Austin. Additionally the TX-45 corridor needs a great deal of improvement, in part so it can act as a bypass around the South side of Austin.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 28, 2021, 03:17:04 PM
Like I've been saying, US-290 going West out of the Austin metro needs to be upgraded to a full blown Interstate. At the very least TX DOT needs to be securing ROW for such a corridor.

The planned freeway upgrade thru the TX-71 "Y" westward to Circle Drive would be a good start. But what is really needed is a super highway corridor all the way thru or around Dripping Springs and all the way West to the US-281 corridor.

The Austin metro area has already been seeing rapid growth for the couple decades. I'm fairly certain the city limits population has breached the 1 million barrier and then some. The region is attracting major companies, both in terms of offices and manufacturing plants. The region is also attracting a lot of celebrities. Austin's "fashionable" image may exaggerate an already rapid growth situation. Despite some of the anti roads/freeway rhetoric coming from some policy makers within (and outside) Austin the situation with traffic will go from already pretty bad to downright desperate and dangerous. They have to do something. US-290 is a major East-West arterial that is overdue for improvement both East and West of Austin. Additionally the TX-45 corridor needs a great deal of improvement, in part so it can act as a bypass around the South side of Austin.

Honestly, at this point it may be easier and quicker to run SH45 west over to 290 and that could act as a bypass of the 290/71 corridor:

https://goo.gl/maps/F3nCMWcbVULjDQeW7

https://bit.ly/3y7rEQ7 (https://bit.ly/3y7rEQ7) - Construction starts July 1

Quote from: thisdj78Honestly, at this point it may be easier and quicker to run SH45 west over to 290 and that could act as a bypass of the 290/71 corridor:

The US-290/TX-71 "Y" is going to be a freeway to freeway connection when the Oak Hill Y project is finished. The US-290 freeway will be extended another 2.5 miles of the split with TX-71. The freeway will end just past the "Y" split with Circle Drive.

I strongly believe the South portion of TX-45 should be fully built out from I-35 out West to US-290. The Oak Hill Y freeway project will end up needing to be extended farther West. Such a thing is do-able along the US-290 main lanes just past the point where TX-45 would intersect. It would be a tight squeeze in some places. The freeway structure might have to be either elevated or sunk below grade with service roads cantilevered over top. But some properties would have to be cleared. No way to avoid that.

Dripping Springs is a big obstacle for US-290 going out West of Austin. TX-45 would not be able to do anything about that. I think a new freeway/Interstate would have to go around the South side of Dripping Springs on a new alignment closer to Onion Creek. That freeway wouldn't be able to rejoin the existing US-290 corridor until it reached about 6 miles West of Dripping Springs. There is a lot of development right next to existing US-290 through there; existing US-290 on that stretch is an undivided 4-lane highway with a center turn lane. There isn't enough ROW width to lay in a 6-lane freeway flanked by frontage roads. A freeway on a new alignment could be built without the frontage roads to minimize ROW requirements.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 30, 2021, 12:15:18 PM

Quote from: thisdj78Honestly, at this point it may be easier and quicker to run SH45 west over to 290 and that could act as a bypass of the 290/71 corridor:

The US-290/TX-71 "Y" is going to be a freeway to freeway connection when the Oak Hill Y project is finished. The US-290 freeway will be extended another 2.5 miles of the split with TX-71. The freeway will end just past the "Y" split with Circle Drive.

I strongly believe the South portion of TX-45 should be fully built out from I-35 out West to US-290. The Oak Hill Y freeway project will end up needing to be extended farther West. Such a thing is do-able along the US-290 main lanes just past the point where TX-45 would intersect. It would be a tight squeeze in some places. The freeway structure might have to be either elevated or sunk below grade with service roads cantilevered over top. But some properties would have to be cleared. No way to avoid that.

Dripping Springs is a big obstacle for US-290 going out West of Austin. TX-45 would not be able to do anything about that. I think a new freeway/Interstate would have to go around the South side of Dripping Springs on a new alignment closer to Onion Creek. That freeway wouldn't be able to rejoin the existing US-290 corridor until it reached about 6 miles West of Dripping Springs. There is a lot of development right next to existing US-290 through there; existing US-290 on that stretch is an undivided 4-lane highway with a center turn lane. There isn't enough ROW width to lay in a 6-lane freeway flanked by frontage roads. A freeway on a new alignment could be built without the frontage roads to minimize ROW requirements.

True, the other option would be to extend Mopac and run it just south of Dripping Springs. And actually I'd have it run south of 290 until just before 281.

^ Anything out to / bypassing Dripping Springs should at least cross / merge with US-290 just west of Oak Hill so that the new facility could serve that traffic load as well.

And as far as Mopac and SH-45, I'd say give SH-45 the continuity, the Mopac would end at SH-45 and traffic could turn west on SH-45 to continue.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 02, 2021, 02:33:11 AM
^ Anything out to / bypassing Dripping Springs should at least cross / merge with US-290 just west of Oak Hill so that the new facility could serve that traffic load as well.

And as far as Mopac and SH-45, I'd say give SH-45 the continuity, the Mopac would end at SH-45 and traffic could turn west on SH-45 to continue.

There are actually plans in the CAMPO 2045 that show Mopac being extended but it goes toward San Marcos and ends north of town at Ranch Road 12.

Quote from: thisdj78 on July 02, 2021, 01:19:14 AM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 30, 2021, 12:15:18 PM

Quote from: thisdj78Honestly, at this point it may be easier and quicker to run SH45 west over to 290 and that could act as a bypass of the 290/71 corridor:

The US-290/TX-71 "Y" is going to be a freeway to freeway connection when the Oak Hill Y project is finished. The US-290 freeway will be extended another 2.5 miles of the split with TX-71. The freeway will end just past the "Y" split with Circle Drive.

I strongly believe the South portion of TX-45 should be fully built out from I-35 out West to US-290. The Oak Hill Y freeway project will end up needing to be extended farther West. Such a thing is do-able along the US-290 main lanes just past the point where TX-45 would intersect. It would be a tight squeeze in some places. The freeway structure might have to be either elevated or sunk below grade with service roads cantilevered over top. But some properties would have to be cleared. No way to avoid that.

Dripping Springs is a big obstacle for US-290 going out West of Austin. TX-45 would not be able to do anything about that. I think a new freeway/Interstate would have to go around the South side of Dripping Springs on a new alignment closer to Onion Creek. That freeway wouldn't be able to rejoin the existing US-290 corridor until it reached about 6 miles West of Dripping Springs. There is a lot of development right next to existing US-290 through there; existing US-290 on that stretch is an undivided 4-lane highway with a center turn lane. There isn't enough ROW width to lay in a 6-lane freeway flanked by frontage roads. A freeway on a new alignment could be built without the frontage roads to minimize ROW requirements.

True, the other option would be to extend Mopac and run it just south of Dripping Springs. And actually I'd have it run south of 290 until just before 281.

I think if a new interstate stays a few miles north of US-290 it would do the least amount of damage.  They would branch off at the east Circle Drive intersection and the new interstate stay north, past the US-281/290 section and come back to 290 around Stonewall. 

There will likely be a short bypass of the immediate Dripping Springs area in the end, but over all US 290 will ultimately get piecemeal updated on its current route through ROW acquisition and frontage road development like how it is from Oak Hill to Circle Dr.

I noticed last week on my daily commute from Dripping Springs to Austin via US-290, signs noting upcoming construction have ben placed.  A sign in this location (https://goo.gl/maps/5BWib3ZXgiiBMpFdA) notes that the construction will be for the next seven miles.  From that point, seven miles puts you almost to the Mopac/US-290/SH-71 interchange.  The signs are up but there isn't a sign of any construction, but it makes me think, is this for the freeway we have been promised for over 40 years?

A funny side note:  The west bound direction at that same point has a sign noting the end of construction, and a speed limit sign returning traffic from 55 MPH to 60 MPH.  One little problem, the speed limit has been 55 MPH from Austin to Dripping Springs for a year now, so there is a speed limit sign in that sequence allowing you to go 60 when you should be going 55.  The eastbound side has a speed limit sign "dropping" the limit to 55 MPH.  Again, it already was 55. 

Yeah, that looks like the Western-most limits of the Oak Hill Y project. The freeway would extend just West of Circle Drive and then would take some distance to transition back down into the existing undivided 5-lane street.

The Westbound traffic jam in that Street View image of US-290 (by the Bat Cave batting cages and corner of Ledgstone Terrace) clearly underscores the need of a freeway going through there. The traffic jam is going on for miles. The same imagery is available in Google Earth. The freeway would need to be more than a standard 4-lane freeway. It would need to be more like 6 or 8 lanes getting out West of Dripping Springs before dropping down to a standard 4-lane facility. Austin is a huge metro. It needs a serious East-West Interstate.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 15, 2021, 11:03:06 AM
Yeah, that looks like the Western-most limits of the Oak Hill Y project. The freeway would extend just West of Circle Drive and then would take some distance to transition back down into the existing undivided 5-lane street.

The Westbound traffic jam in that Street View image of US-290 (by the Bat Cave batting cages and corner of Ledgstone Terrace) clearly underscores the need of a freeway going through there. The traffic jam is going on for miles. The same imagery is available in Google Earth. The freeway would need to be more than a standard 4-lane freeway. It would need to be more like 6 or 8 lanes getting out West of Dripping Springs before dropping down to a standard 4-lane facility. Austin is a huge metro. It needs a serious East-West Interstate.

Yes.  On top of the usual heavy traffic, about twice a week I sit in a traffic jam comparable to the one you are talking about in the image.  Always, its nothing other than too many people on a highway littered in traffic lights.  There is no wreck.  There is no stalled car.  It's just too many people.  Yes, there needs to be a freeway past Dripping Springs.

https://www.kvue.com/mobile/article/traffic/oak-hill-parkway-project-y-construction/269-c9476988-02b1-461c-ba49-e358ade2b7a3?fbclid=IwAR2c6D9lB2aK0aHnALX23tRclY46av_d23-A_H8_p--PzeDpPRsDMvI4t1Q (https://www.kvue.com/mobile/article/traffic/oak-hill-parkway-project-y-construction/269-c9476988-02b1-461c-ba49-e358ade2b7a3?fbclid=IwAR2c6D9lB2aK0aHnALX23tRclY46av_d23-A_H8_p--PzeDpPRsDMvI4t1Q)

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 16, 2021, 10:42:54 AM
https://www.kvue.com/mobile/article/traffic/oak-hill-parkway-project-y-construction/269-c9476988-02b1-461c-ba49-e358ade2b7a3?fbclid=IwAR2c6D9lB2aK0aHnALX23tRclY46av_d23-A_H8_p--PzeDpPRsDMvI4t1Q (https://www.kvue.com/mobile/article/traffic/oak-hill-parkway-project-y-construction/269-c9476988-02b1-461c-ba49-e358ade2b7a3?fbclid=IwAR2c6D9lB2aK0aHnALX23tRclY46av_d23-A_H8_p--PzeDpPRsDMvI4t1Q)

That's good news.

Hopefully activity will start moving at a faster pace now. The project has been in slow motion. It has been 14 months since the winning bidder was selected! Covid probably had some influence in the long delays.
September 2018: bids solicited
April 2020: winning bid selected
July 2021: construction starts

Hopefully by the 2025-26 time frame for when the Oak Hill Y project will be completed TX DOT will have plans together for extending the freeway farther West. They gotta get moving on that.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 16, 2021, 02:11:20 PM
Hopefully by the 2025-26 time frame for when the Oak Hill Y project will be completed TX DOT will have plans together for extending the freeway farther West. They gotta get moving on that.

Yes. I hope.  Here is the thing.  It will be a hard road ahead to get the freeway to Dripping Springs, but I honestly think that the Oak Hill part is the hardest of them all.  The way anti-freeway sentiments seem to be the strongest there.  From Circle Drive going west, the attitude gets more conservative, meaning, pro progress.  Yes you are dealing with rich people that way, but they seem to be more affluent good ol boys, not your normal liberal Austinites.  I have watched this project stall literally since 1985. 


On a side note, it's funny to me to watch a freeway revolt go on for that long of a time, so that when construction actually starts, it begins in a different world that when the plans were first drafted.  Meaning, all the design standards and materials have changed since it was first put to meetings.  The side note is what it would look like if it were built back when they first planned it vs. when they actually build it. 

Another side note:  I don't mean to talk so rough about this, but I notice, stopped in traffic (of course) yesterday that tapped on this (https://goo.gl/maps/ZVhbakPuEBAk6ZQD9) guardrail are posters, one saying the answer to improving traffic isn't wider roads (I am not going to get into how mornic I think that statement is).  The trees just beyond the guardrail had posterboard nailed to them with a drawing of a human face on them, I guess symbolizing each of those trees are a human?  What I don't understand is, they are trees in a public right-of-way right next to a busy highway.  Did any of the tree huggers that posted all that stuff about the construction actually come to relax or have a picnic under any of those trees?  The area is very overgrown so I don't think anyone has been there in years.  So, I ask, if you never cared about them before, why do you care if they are being removed?  Why are the trees in the many parks we have not enough trees?  I am also sure all of those people who put those signs up also get very annoyed in traffic, so you can't have it both ways.  Sorry, but I seriously don't understand that logic and never will. 

Now when will they ever do anything with US-290 between Austin and Houston, that isn't just physical dividing it with a median in some places recently a few years ago (according to Google Maps at least)? Which don't get me wrong, is a step in the right direction, but there is still lots of work to be done, like updating the TX-36 intersection by being more direct, and of course the long-overdue Giddings bypass.

It also looks like there's enough space in Manor and Elgin (as well as in between those) for a highway to be there but that's just me. (tho several businesses may have to be shut down to make space for it)

Here's what i was referring to, when it comes to these new medians
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1863859,-96.9955395,403m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2099237,-97.107191,403m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2341607,-97.1938925,402m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2998362,-97.2892712,402m/data=!3m1!1e3

It doesn't even need to be 100% freeway/interstate, it just needs to be a non-stop expressway between Austin and Houston at the very least

And what's the point of complaining something like that if it's not even within the city of Austin (by that, i mean inside TX-130 highway)?

Quote from: TheBox on July 26, 2021, 11:00:53 AM
Now when will they ever do anything with US-290 between Austin and Houston, that isn't just physical dividing it with a median in some places recently a few years ago (according to Google Maps at least)? Which don't get me wrong, is a step in the right direction, but there is still lots of work to be done, like updating the TX-36 intersection by being more direct, and of course the long-overdue Giddings bypass.

It also looks like there's enough space in Manor and Elgin (as well as in between those) for a highway to be there but that's just me. (tho several businesses may have to be shut down to make space for it)

Here's what i was referring to, when it comes to these new medians
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1863859,-96.9955395,403m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2099237,-97.107191,403m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2341607,-97.1938925,402m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2998362,-97.2892712,402m/data=!3m1!1e3

It doesn't even need to be 100% freeway/interstate, it just needs to be a non-stop expressway between Austin and Houston at the very least

And what's the point of complaining something like that if it's not even within the city of Austin (by that, i mean inside TX-130 highway)?

Eh, 290 is a lost cause.  My money goes to upgrading TX-71 to a full freeway from Columbus to Austin.  shorter distance and can be done way cheaper and a more direct link.  I hate driving on 290 east of Austin. 

Both US-290 and TX-71 going East out of Austin need Interstate quality ugprades. Add the TX-80 and TX-46 corridors going out of San Marcos and New Braunfels. The Austin-San Antonio region has a ridiculously high population that only looks like it will continue growing fast.

All four of those corridors could turn into "lost causes," covered up with development if actions aren't taken soon to start preserving ROW. TX-71 from TX-130 to Bastrop is looking every bit as challenging to upgrade as any part of US-290.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 26, 2021, 11:46:35 AM

Quote from: TheBox on July 26, 2021, 11:00:53 AM
Now when will they ever do anything with US-290 between Austin and Houston, that isn't just physical dividing it with a median in some places recently a few years ago (according to Google Maps at least)? Which don't get me wrong, is a step in the right direction, but there is still lots of work to be done, like updating the TX-36 intersection by being more direct, and of course the long-overdue Giddings bypass.

It also looks like there's enough space in Manor and Elgin (as well as in between those) for a highway to be there but that's just me. (tho several businesses may have to be shut down to make space for it)

Here's what i was referring to, when it comes to these new medians
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1863859,-96.9955395,403m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2099237,-97.107191,403m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2341607,-97.1938925,402m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2998362,-97.2892712,402m/data=!3m1!1e3

It doesn't even need to be 100% freeway/interstate, it just needs to be a non-stop expressway between Austin and Houston at the very least

And what's the point of complaining something like that if it's not even within the city of Austin (by that, i mean inside TX-130 highway)?

Eh, 290 is a lost cause.  My money goes to upgrading TX-71 to a full freeway from Columbus to Austin.  shorter distance and can be done way cheaper and a more direct link.  I hate driving on 290 east of Austin.

I noted this in the Austin Projects thread, but SH71 grade separation construction is going on as we speak on several stop lights between SH130 and Bastrop. Currently in the utility relocation stage.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 26, 2021, 11:46:35 AM

Quote from: TheBox on July 26, 2021, 11:00:53 AM
Now when will they ever do anything with US-290 between Austin and Houston, that isn't just physical dividing it with a median in some places recently a few years ago (according to Google Maps at least)? Which don't get me wrong, is a step in the right direction, but there is still lots of work to be done, like updating the TX-36 intersection by being more direct, and of course the long-overdue Giddings bypass.

It also looks like there's enough space in Manor and Elgin (as well as in between those) for a highway to be there but that's just me. (tho several businesses may have to be shut down to make space for it)

Here's what i was referring to, when it comes to these new medians
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1863859,-96.9955395,403m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2099237,-97.107191,403m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2341607,-97.1938925,402m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2998362,-97.2892712,402m/data=!3m1!1e3

It doesn't even need to be 100% freeway/interstate, it just needs to be a non-stop expressway between Austin and Houston at the very least

And what's the point of complaining something like that if it's not even within the city of Austin (by that, i mean inside TX-130 highway)?

Eh, 290 is a lost cause.  My money goes to upgrading TX-71 to a full freeway from Columbus to Austin.  shorter distance and can be done way cheaper and a more direct link.  I hate driving on 290 east of Austin.

Agreed on the points about SH-71, though it's roughly the same distance wise as US-290.

US-290 and TX-71 going out of Austin point to different regions of the Houston metro. There is a LOT of development (and affluence) on the North side of the Houston metro. US-290 is a superior link to that part of Houston and the growing, Northern reaches of the Austin metro. TX-71 does more to link up with the South sides of Austin and portions of Houston along and South of I-10.

How far west could a US 290 freeway or a four-lane highway potentially go? All the way to Interstate 10 would probably be a bridge-too-far, but maybe to US 281 would be sufficient.

I see little point with upgrading the US-290 corridor going West of Austin up to Interstate standards unless the super highway ultimately connects to I-10. Johnson City isn't a big enough destination for a US-290 upgrade to merely stop there.

As it stands, the current plan with US-290 on Austin's west side is very slow, incremental upgrades until the corridor gets so boxed in with development that any upgrades at all become impossible.

I could see a four lane divided highway closer to I-10, then upgrading to freeway as traffic volumes increase and warrants such a design east of Johnson City.

Anything west of there is not really needed or warranted, at least from a design standpoint.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 30, 2021, 09:26:09 PM
I could see a four lane divided highway closer to I-10, then upgrading to freeway as traffic volumes increase and warrants such a design east of Johnson City.

Anything west of there is not really needed or warranted, at least from a design standpoint.

I totally forgot that a bypass is proposed around Fredericksburg, so that is at least one segment under consideration:

https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/aus/fredericksburg-relief-route/030619-faqs.pdf

Quote from: sprjus4Anything west of there is not really needed or warranted, at least from a design standpoint.

By that logic any long distance Interstate highway passing through desolate areas might as well be a 2 lane road.

Regionally speaking, the Austin metro is more than large enough to justify its own thru East-West Interstate route connecting fully to the larger Interstate system. Austin has only North-South Interstate access currently. There is already two possible routes going East of Austin. US-290 is the only outlet going West out of Austin.

[vimeo][/vimeo]

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 31, 2021, 11:07:50 PM

Quote from: sprjus4Anything west of there is not really needed or warranted, at least from a design standpoint.

By that logic any long distance Interstate highway passing through desolate areas might as well be a 2 lane road.

Regionally speaking, the Austin metro is more than large enough to justify its own thru East-West Interstate route connecting fully to the larger Interstate system. Austin has only North-South Interstate access currently. There is already two possible routes going East of Austin. US-290 is the only outlet going West out of Austin.

So you mean I-18(?, generic numbering for proposed route) should end in I-35? Honestly, not bad call. I-35 has connections to SA and DFW. If anything, El Paso would be otherwise the best end if it were to go farther.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 31, 2021, 11:07:50 PM
By that logic any long distance Interstate highway passing through desolate areas might as well be a 2 lane road.

Those type highways got built when the federal government provided 90% funded. Trying to convince TxDOT to invest billions of dollars into US-290 to upgrade it into a full fledged freeway for 2,000 AADT... good luck. There's no need for full control of access, overpasses, frontage roads, etc. Four lane divided highway, free flowing, and only the access control, bridges, and ramps near towns and at signal warranting junctions. Speed limit 75 mph. Plenty adequate.

US-290 is not going to become a major through route for 20-30,000 AADT if upgraded to a freeway, I-10 already exists for long haul traffic. And US-290 is not a "shorter"  route - 5-10 miles at most and still goes through the Austin area so it's not an "incentive"  to avoid San Antonio. I'd rather invest the money to expand I-10 to 6 lanes between San Antonio and Houston, finish the upgrade / widening of Loop 1604 to 10 lanes, and widen I-10 out to Bourne. That would be more than adequate for through traffic and provide a bypass of San Antonio.

Quote from: ThegeetSo you mean I-18(?, generic numbering for proposed route) should end in I-35? Honestly, not bad call. I-35 has connections to SA and DFW. If anything, El Paso would be otherwise the best end if it were to go farther.

The kind of Interstate quality upgrade I'm talking about would mostly overlap existing US-290 when possible, save for bypasses around Johnson City and Fredericksburg. The road would dovetail into I-10 about 40 miles West of Fredericksburg, basically the same location as US-290.

As for numbering, if it were up to me I'd designate as another I-12, saving I-18 for another location. Honestly, I don't care if the US-290 and TX-71 corridors going in and out of Austin keep their current numbers. The routes do need to be physically upgraded regardless of what type of route number they carry.

Quote from: sprjus4Those type highways got built when the federal government provided 90% funded. Trying to convince TxDOT to invest billions of dollars into US-290 to upgrade it into a full fledged freeway for 2,000 AADT... good luck.

The funding methods are besides the point. Occasionally the federal government does step up to fund certain projects. Austin is not a small town. It sure as hell isn't a suburb of San Antonio. Austin is literally one of the most populous cities in the nation, both in terms of city limits and metro population (and without factoring in any of San Antonio's population).

As to the low traffic counts on US-290 well past Austin the numbers are low in part because it's a crappy 2 lane route with various hazards along the way in a somewhat desolate area. People go out of their way to avoid it. 

Quote from: sprjus4US-290 is not going to become a major through route for 20-30,000 AADT if upgraded to a freeway, I-10 already exists for long haul traffic. And US-290 is not a "shorter"  route - 5-10 miles at most and still goes through the Austin area so it's not an "incentive"  to avoid San Antonio.

I don't know what kind of map you're looking at, but I-35 from Austin down to San Antonio and I-10 going "West" of San Antonio is literally a "V" shape. US-290 is literally the flat side of that triangle. Loop 1604 does very little to shave mileage and time off that route. Add to that the issue of the Northern reaches of San Antonio, New Braunfels and San Marcos booming in population and new traffic. US-290 is not the only East-West route in that region that will be dying for serious highway upgrades. That's a price to pay for attracting lots of new residents from other parts of the nation.

Need a freeway for all the people moving from California to Austin :P

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 02, 2021, 12:01:03 AM
As to the low traffic counts on US-290 well past Austin the numbers are low in part because it's a crappy 2 lane route with various hazards along the way in a somewhat desolate area. People go out of their way to avoid it.

This is the argument I have had for years.  If you have 4 crappy corridors (just arbitrary numbers, for example), the traffic volume on one of those corridors will be unimpressive, I agree, but it's because it's a crappy corridor.  If you have one freeway corridor, all the traffic on those 4 crappy corridors will be consolidated into the one freeway, and then you will see the traffic count reach something that an interstate would see.  I agree with you.  U.S. 290 west of Austin is a crappy road.  Even when it's not 2-lanes, its undivided and you have to drive through downtown Dripping Springs, Johnson City, Fredericksburg and Harper.  Long haul traffic will avoid it at all costs.  If you have a freeway there, many will take the opportunity to skim north of San Antonio.  I don't understand why that's so hard for people to grasp.  If you are a city and you want to attract a major league baseball team, you have to build a stadium first to show the powers that be you are equipped to house a team.  You don't get an expansion franchise and them play a few years at a rec league park until they establish themselves and you feel comfortable enough that they need a stadium bigger than a few bleachers in a park to then finally build a major league stadium.  Same thing here; don't wait until the traffic is unbearable to finally start doing something.  Have the foresight to realize if there is one superior corridor, all the other routes will merger their traffic onto it.

I understand that yes it's not a huge selling point when you say, "Avoid San Antonio by taking this other interstate that goes through another huge city."  I get that.  Logically I think of it this way.  If I am driving from Austin to Oklahoma City, or places north on I-35, I will always take I-35W through Ft. Worth (unless for some reason I have to go to Dallas on my way).  It the shorter route; I know it and everyone else knows it.  Does it suck that it bypasses Dallas by going through a city with 800,000 people in in on the west side of a 6 million population urban area?  It does, but I understand that I-35W is straighter than the windier I-35E route, plus it does go through a slightly less populated part of the metroplex (not by a lot, we are talking 400,000 people, but it's something).  Its the same concept here.  Heading west from Columbus to Segovia, I-10 dips south to get to San Antonio, then runs nearly due north out of San Antonio.  If TX-71 and US-290 were upgraded to an interstate it would give everyone a straighter alternative. 

It's funny but it's true.  Austin is getting a lot of traffic from California.  They need an interstate. 

^ Are people going out of their way to avoid I-10 between San Antonio and El Paso? Because the traffic volumes bottom out to around 4,000 AADT.

I-10 volumes just east of US-290 is a mere 11,500 AADT. US-290 is 981. The highest I-10 even gets between US-290 and I-20 is 13,680 near Junction.

It really speaks to this "heavy demand"  that's "spread across X crappy corridors" .

The demand just really doesn't exist for TxDOT to invest billions of dollars without significant federal investment (not to mention - the comparison to the original interstates is also moot given cost per mile, even adjusted for inflation, was significantly less) to improve US-290 from an undivided 4 lane road into a fully controlled access interstate highway that might not even see volumes above 5,000 AADT. As I said before, at most a 4 lane divided highway with a 75 mph speed limit and town bypasses would be far more than adequate. East of Dripping Springs is where a full freeway design is warranted all the way into Austin, and even further east all the way to Houston.

Quote from: sprjus4^ Are people going out of their way to avoid I-10 between San Antonio and El Paso? Because the traffic volumes bottom out to around 4,000 AADT.

San Antonio to El Paso is the longest stretch of I-10 without any significant destinations in between. Very little cross-country commercial vehicle traffic will stay on I-10 for its entire length thru Texas, due in part to some of the really odd jogs the route takes crossing Texas. I-10 takes a hard turn at Las Cruces and another hard turn at San Antonio. When you look at the US map it's easy to see Las Cruces is literally due West of Abilene. I-10 was still completed (for the most part) anyway for the sake of consistency, safety and having a logically complete national system. The Interstate system is not supposed to be a hodge-podge of different highway types.

I-10 doesn't have the same safety hazards as US-290 near Fredericksburg. I-10 is at least a divided and mostly limited access route. There are more services along the route, more lights, more activity, etc. Driving on desolate roads in West Texas can be a scary experience, particularly at night. I've driven on US-82 at night between Lubbock and Wichita Falls during the fall when deer are in the rut. That can be a white knuckle experience there. US-290 out near the I-10 junction looks like it could be every bit as hairy.

The low AADT counts on both I-10 and US-290 can and probably will change, due in part to the business and distribution center growth in the Austin area. Amazon, Google, Tesla, etc are building big there. Bypasses with freeway upgrade potential are going to be urgently needed for Johnson City and Fredericksburg. TX DOT at least needs to get US-290 turned into a 4-lane divided highway to the US-281 corridor just to preserve ROW for the future. On top of that TX DOT needs to be looking at TX-46 between Boerne, Spring Branch and New Braunfels.

I get it that freeway (or toll road) upgrades are very costly. OTOH, the section of US-290 between I-10 and Johnson City would not be all that bad. The super highway upgrades come at a cost of that region having the fastest population growth in the nation. The San Antonio and Austin region together is 5 million. And that's going to keep growing.

Here we go again... https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/federal-judge-stops-txdot-from-bulldozing-protected-trees-in-oak-hill (https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/federal-judge-stops-txdot-from-bulldozing-protected-trees-in-oak-hill)

Quote from: Echostatic on August 02, 2021, 11:30:01 PM
Here we go again... https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/federal-judge-stops-txdot-from-bulldozing-protected-trees-in-oak-hill (https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/federal-judge-stops-txdot-from-bulldozing-protected-trees-in-oak-hill)

This infuriates me!!  1994!!  I was born and raised in Oak Hill so don't bring your "I've lived here since 1994" crap here!  I was promised a freeway since the 80s and I held off, so it's time you give in as well.   Again, go to a park if you want to hang with the trees, not in a highway right-of-way!!  Rant over.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 03, 2021, 02:55:47 PM

Quote from: Echostatic on August 02, 2021, 11:30:01 PM
Here we go again... https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/federal-judge-stops-txdot-from-bulldozing-protected-trees-in-oak-hill (https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/federal-judge-stops-txdot-from-bulldozing-protected-trees-in-oak-hill)

This infuriates me!!  1994!!  I was born and raised in Oak Hill so don't bring your "I've lived here since 1994" crap here!  I was promised a freeway since the 80s and I held off, so it's time you give in as well.   Again, go to a park if you want to hang with the trees, not in a highway right-of-way!!  Rant over.

Not to mention, those trees are mostly junipers/cedars that wouldn't have grown there without previous clear-cutting and ranching.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 02, 2021, 09:25:51 PM

I get it that freeway (or toll road) upgrades are very costly. OTOH, the section of US-290 between I-10 and Johnson City would not be all that bad. The super highway upgrades come at a cost of that region having the fastest population growth in the nation. The San Antonio and Austin region together is 5 million. And that's going to keep growing.

Nope, 5th.  The Combined Statistical Areas with the largest actual population increases 2011-2020 are:

1. DFW +1,378 million
2. Houston +1,241
3. Atlanta  +1,154

And if you want to combined the statistically separate SA CSA with the Austin MSA at 79 miles between downtowns, then you have to combine the Orlando CSA with the Tampa MSA at 83 miles apart.  They would be 2nd at +1,242, maybe pushing Hou and Atl to 3rd and 4th.  Except if the altered definitions to allow SA/Aus and Orl/Tampa to be combined are applied to other CSA's, Hou moves back to 2nd and maybe Atl back to 3rd.  Either way, SA/Aus at +1,031 is 5th in regional growth in the US.

(And for readers wanting to cite percentage growth, in most instances that is a misleading stat.  BFE, Alaska's population can grow 100% from 10 people to 20, but DFW growing 20% by increasing a net 1.378 million persons is what is actually growing faster.  Percentage growth might show relative impact, but it rarely shows in context actual increase in demand.)

Quote from: armadillo speedbump on August 04, 2021, 02:46:06 AM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 02, 2021, 09:25:51 PM

I get it that freeway (or toll road) upgrades are very costly. OTOH, the section of US-290 between I-10 and Johnson City would not be all that bad. The super highway upgrades come at a cost of that region having the fastest population growth in the nation. The San Antonio and Austin region together is 5 million. And that's going to keep growing.

Nope, 5th.  The Combined Statistical Areas with the largest actual population increases 2011-2020 are:

1. DFW +1,378 million
2. Houston +1,241
3. Atlanta  +1,154

And if you want to combined the statistically separate SA CSA with the Austin MSA at 79 miles between downtowns, then you have to combine the Orlando CSA with the Tampa MSA at 83 miles apart.  They would be 2nd at +1,242, maybe pushing Hou and Atl to 3rd and 4th.  Except if the altered definitions to allow SA/Aus and Orl/Tampa to be combined are applied to other CSA's, Hou moves back to 2nd and maybe Atl back to 3rd.  Either way, SA/Aus at +1,031 is 5th in regional growth in the US.

(And for readers wanting to cite percentage growth, in most instances that is a misleading stat.  BFE, Alaska's population can grow 100% from 10 people to 20, but DFW growing 20% by increasing a net 1.378 million persons is what is actually growing faster.  Percentage growth might show relative impact, but it rarely shows in context actual increase in demand.)

Never is San Antonio and Austin considered one MSA!  :-D

I did reach out to TxDOT yesterday to show my support for this project, and the representative for the Oak Hill Parkway did ensure me that this injunction only affects these specific trees and shouldn't slow progress of the project.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 04, 2021, 10:09:58 AM

Quote from: armadillo speedbump on August 04, 2021, 02:46:06 AM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 02, 2021, 09:25:51 PM

I get it that freeway (or toll road) upgrades are very costly. OTOH, the section of US-290 between I-10 and Johnson City would not be all that bad. The super highway upgrades come at a cost of that region having the fastest population growth in the nation. The San Antonio and Austin region together is 5 million. And that's going to keep growing.

Nope, 5th.  The Combined Statistical Areas with the largest actual population increases 2011-2020 are:

1. DFW +1,378 million
2. Houston +1,241
3. Atlanta  +1,154

And if you want to combined the statistically separate SA CSA with the Austin MSA at 79 miles between downtowns, then you have to combine the Orlando CSA with the Tampa MSA at 83 miles apart.  They would be 2nd at +1,242, maybe pushing Hou and Atl to 3rd and 4th.  Except if the altered definitions to allow SA/Aus and Orl/Tampa to be combined are applied to other CSA's, Hou moves back to 2nd and maybe Atl back to 3rd.  Either way, SA/Aus at +1,031 is 5th in regional growth in the US.

(And for readers wanting to cite percentage growth, in most instances that is a misleading stat.  BFE, Alaska's population can grow 100% from 10 people to 20, but DFW growing 20% by increasing a net 1.378 million persons is what is actually growing faster.  Percentage growth might show relative impact, but it rarely shows in context actual increase in demand.)

Never is San Antonio and Austin considered one MSA!  :-D

True, but if San Marcos and New Braunfels continue to fill in/out....I could see it being considered a CSA in the future.

Things are progressing smoothly.  All the trees from Circle Drive to El Rey Blvd. have been bulldozed.  Utilities are looking like they are being relocated. 

Quote from: Echostatic on August 02, 2021, 11:30:01 PM
Here we go again... https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/federal-judge-stops-txdot-from-bulldozing-protected-trees-in-oak-hill (https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/federal-judge-stops-txdot-from-bulldozing-protected-trees-in-oak-hill)

What if the relocated the trees? They could keep their trees and move on with this project.

Community Impact: Judge denies effort to stop Oak Hill Parkway construction


https://communityimpact.com/austin/na/transportation/2021/09/14/judge-denies-effort-to-stop-oak-hill-parkway-construction/

Quote from: Chris on September 14, 2021, 04:56:22 PM
Community Impact: Judge denies effort to stop Oak Hill Parkway construction


https://communityimpact.com/austin/na/transportation/2021/09/14/judge-denies-effort-to-stop-oak-hill-parkway-construction/

Yey. Now there can be  an oak hill pkwy.

Quote from: Thegeet on September 14, 2021, 10:21:59 PM

Quote from: Chris on September 14, 2021, 04:56:22 PM
Community Impact: Judge denies effort to stop Oak Hill Parkway construction


https://communityimpact.com/austin/na/transportation/2021/09/14/judge-denies-effort-to-stop-oak-hill-parkway-construction/

Yey. Now there can be  an oak hill pkwy.

Just call it a freeway. As a Northeast Native, i hate how the meaning of the word "parkway" has been butchered.

Quote from: kernals12 on September 14, 2021, 10:23:10 PM

Quote from: Thegeet on September 14, 2021, 10:21:59 PM

Quote from: Chris on September 14, 2021, 04:56:22 PM
Community Impact: Judge denies effort to stop Oak Hill Parkway construction


https://communityimpact.com/austin/na/transportation/2021/09/14/judge-denies-effort-to-stop-oak-hill-parkway-construction/

Yey. Now there can be  an oak hill pkwy.

Just call it a freeway. As a Northeast Native, i hate how the meaning of the word "parkway" has been butchered.

They call it a parkway to keep the NYMBYs from losing their minds. 

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

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

Quote from: kernals12Apparantly 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.

Quote from: TheBoxSan 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.

Quote from: TheBoxMake 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.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 24, 2022, 12:13:08 PM

Quote from: kernals12Apparantly 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.

Quote from: TheBoxSan 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.

Quote from: TheBoxMake 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. 

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on January 24, 2022, 04:27:26 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 24, 2022, 12:13:08 PM

Quote from: kernals12Apparantly 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.

Quote from: TheBoxSan 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.

Quote from: TheBoxMake 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

Quote from: TheBox on January 23, 2022, 11:36:46 PM
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.

Quote from: kernals12Interstate 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.

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*

(https://i.ibb.co/PgMGjCC/8-D7-CFD1-A-D8-DF-448-B-A09-F-76-FEDD9-A2-F22.jpg)

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.

Quote from: thisdj78 on January 25, 2022, 08:29:43 AM
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*

(https://i.ibb.co/PgMGjCC/8-D7-CFD1-A-D8-DF-448-B-A09-F-76-FEDD9-A2-F22.jpg)

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

Quote from: kernals12 on January 25, 2022, 05:31:48 PM

Quote from: thisdj78 on January 25, 2022, 08:29:43 AM
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?

Almost all of them.

https://www.loop360project.com/ (https://www.loop360project.com/)

Quote from: Echostatic on January 25, 2022, 06:02:09 PM
Almost all of them.

https://www.loop360project.com/ (https://www.loop360project.com/)

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

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.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 25, 2022, 06:14:06 PM

Quote from: Echostatic on January 25, 2022, 06:02:09 PM
Almost all of them.

https://www.loop360project.com/ (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

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:

(https://i.imgur.com/W2KrEwa.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/g5Gizab.png)

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

(https://i.imgur.com/LR1ubhu.png)

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.

(https://i.imgur.com/RbItueZ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/4MvnwWK.png)

Past Great Hills Trail, there are no planned improvements

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 25, 2022, 06:40:54 PM
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 (https://www.loop360project.com/faqs.htm) makes it pretty clear that money is the only thing keeping them from upgrading those last intersections near MoPac and 183.

Quote from: kernals12 on January 25, 2022, 07:58:25 PM
And TxDOT (https://www.loop360project.com/faqs.htm) makes it pretty clear that money is the only thing keeping them from upgrading those last intersections near MoPac and 183.

QuoteThe 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.

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

Quote from: kernals12 on January 26, 2022, 07:39:08 PM
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 (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 (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 (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/austin/rm620/rm620-sh71-hudson-bend-rd.html)

Quote from: kernals12 on January 26, 2022, 07:39:08 PM
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:

(https://i.ibb.co/p2Qkvc4/48-C61501-7-DFD-4-D0-D-8139-94-AA6034-EF2-D.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Y2XV7mf)
foto jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

Quote from: thisdj78 on January 26, 2022, 10:37:25 PM

Quote from: kernals12 on January 26, 2022, 07:39:08 PM
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:

(https://i.ibb.co/p2Qkvc4/48-C61501-7-DFD-4-D0-D-8139-94-AA6034-EF2-D.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Y2XV7mf)
foto jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

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.

Quote from: kernals12 on January 26, 2022, 11:08:23 PM

Quote from: thisdj78 on January 26, 2022, 10:37:25 PM

Quote from: kernals12 on January 26, 2022, 07:39:08 PM
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:

(https://i.ibb.co/p2Qkvc4/48-C61501-7-DFD-4-D0-D-8139-94-AA6034-EF2-D.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Y2XV7mf)
foto jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

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.

Quote from: thisdj78 on January 26, 2022, 11:21:34 PM

Quote from: kernals12 on January 26, 2022, 11:08:23 PM

Quote from: thisdj78 on January 26, 2022, 10:37:25 PM

Quote from: kernals12 on January 26, 2022, 07:39:08 PM
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:

(https://i.ibb.co/p2Qkvc4/48-C61501-7-DFD-4-D0-D-8139-94-AA6034-EF2-D.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Y2XV7mf)
foto jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

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.

Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2022, 08:16:30 AM

Quote from: thisdj78 on January 26, 2022, 11:21:34 PM

Quote from: kernals12 on January 26, 2022, 11:08:23 PM

Quote from: thisdj78 on January 26, 2022, 10:37:25 PM

Quote from: kernals12 on January 26, 2022, 07:39:08 PM
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:

(https://i.ibb.co/p2Qkvc4/48-C61501-7-DFD-4-D0-D-8139-94-AA6034-EF2-D.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Y2XV7mf)
foto jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

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:

(https://i.ibb.co/GHQjx7L/7-D7-A3685-11-AE-477-F-A123-AC9-F829-B9-D37.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Y0BGR2M)

Pretty sure that alignment was abandoned when they designed the 1990s 620 bridge to be freeway-ready

Quote from: TXtoNJ on January 27, 2022, 11:12:04 AM
Pretty sure that alignment was abandoned when they designed the 1990s 620 bridge to be freeway-ready

There's no ROW south of that bridge though, especially as you get closer to 71/Bee Caves.

Quote from: thisdj78 on January 27, 2022, 12:37:33 PM

Quote from: TXtoNJ on January 27, 2022, 11:12:04 AM
Pretty sure that alignment was abandoned when they designed the 1990s 620 bridge to be freeway-ready

There's no ROW south of that bridge though, especially as you get closer to 71/Bee Caves.

TXDOT is no stranger to pushing a freeway through something like that, that whole stretch is no more developed nor encroaching as the Brownfield Highway was in Lubbock before they turned it into the Marsha Sharp Freeway.  It looks like it could be done minimally with barely any ROW takes and end up with a controlled access 2-2-2-2 frontage road set up, but I suspect when the time comes they will get the ROW to comfortably expand out to 2-3-3-2 if need be.

If a Giddings bypass ever happens, should it go and bypass north above or south below?

Quote from: TheBox on February 10, 2022, 11:23:20 AM
If a Giddings bypass ever happens, should it go and bypass north above or south below?

North minimizes residential takings, so it's almost certainly the path they'll choose

Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 10, 2022, 11:31:09 AM

Quote from: TheBox on February 10, 2022, 11:23:20 AM
If a Giddings bypass ever happens, should it go and bypass north above or south below?

North minimizes residential takings, so it's almost certainly the path they'll choose

Has there been any official talk or proposal of a bypass yet?

The only thing I'm seeing is the phrase "RELIEF ROUTE AROUND GIDDINGS" in:
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/report/0512/trtp_appendix_e_id.pdf
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/report/0512/trtp_appendix_e_district.pdf.pdf

Quote from: yakra on February 11, 2022, 09:19:14 AM
The only thing I'm seeing is the phrase "RELIEF ROUTE AROUND GIDDINGS" in:
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/report/0512/trtp_appendix_e_id.pdf
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/report/0512/trtp_appendix_e_district.pdf.pdf

Nice. First time I've seen anything referenced regarding a bypass.

Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 10, 2022, 11:31:09 AM

Quote from: TheBox on February 10, 2022, 11:23:20 AM
If a Giddings bypass ever happens, should it go and bypass north above or south below?

North minimizes residential takings, so it's almost certainly the path they'll choose

Seeing that the high school is on the north side they should automatically go south, but being TXDOT they will make sure the route goes as close to the high school as possible.

Quote from: aboges26 on February 27, 2022, 12:55:29 PM

Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 10, 2022, 11:31:09 AM

Quote from: TheBox on February 10, 2022, 11:23:20 AM
If a Giddings bypass ever happens, should it go and bypass north above or south below?

North minimizes residential takings, so it's almost certainly the path they'll choose

Seeing that the high school is on the north side they should automatically go south, but being TXDOT they will make sure the route goes as close to the high school as possible.

There seems to be plenty of ROW to run a bypass between the school and the town and it still not be too close to the campus:

(https://i.ibb.co/J5FJSSR/908-C090-B-019-A-48-DD-A646-169-FE04-E3841.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hD1zTTR)

Texas Hill Country is a beautiful area. It would be a shame if we wake up one day to find the main road through it littered with strip malls and advertisements for vacation homes.

US 290 should be converted into a limited access divided parkway. There'd be no outdoor advertising allowed beyond the most essential signs for business identification and development would have to follow strict regulations to preserve the aesthetics of the corridor.

A state DOT or toll road authority's jurisdiction over sign codes is somewhat limited. They can't do all that much about signs and billboards that are erected outside of the highway's right of way. That comes down to city and county sign codes as well as zoning ordinances for commercial, residential or industrial property. Here in Oklahoma, tribal governments can have their say on things like how many billboards can be installed every so and such many feet. Just look at the parade of double-stack and 4-stack billboards next to I-44 just North of the Medicine Park exit.

Then there are recent court cases that have shot giant sized holes through many types of sign ordinances. One example, Reed v. Town of Gilbert ruled that any content-based regulation for signs was a violation of the first amendment. A town's sign code can't treat the sign of one type of business different than another category of business. Then there is the matter that on premise signs are by far one of the most important marketing tools for a brick and mortar business. Severe restrictions on what kind of sign a business can install will hurt that business.

Quote from: kernals12 on August 26, 2022, 07:49:32 PM
Texas Hill Country is a beautiful area. It would be a shame if we wake up one day to find the main road through it littered with strip malls and advertisements for vacation homes.

US 290 should be converted into a limited access divided parkway. There'd be no outdoor advertising allowed beyond the most essential signs for business identification and development would have to follow strict regulations to preserve the aesthetics of the corridor.

Eh, it's pretty-ish.  Thing is there is like 200 miles of it in every direction.  Turning US-290 to a freeway from Austin to Segovia will take from a very very very small portion of it.  I want to see it and don't want the aesthetics to get in the way.  You want to look at the hill country, that's great.  Exit the freeway and enjoy!

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 29, 2022, 05:03:06 PM
Turning US-29 to a freeway from Austin to Segovia will take from a very very very small portion of it.  I want to see it and don't want the aesthetics to get in the way.  You want to look at the hill country, that's great.  Exit the freeway and enjoy!

Since when US-29 had been extended from Florida to Texas? ;)

The full length of the project  is now a large-scale construction zone

The first piers are up at William Cannon road.
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20221026-austin_043-1600.JPG (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20221026-austin_043-1600.JPG)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20221026-austin_043-1600.JPG&hash=949c21d2e2ccdee3c4744409af36fe45667c14a1)

This view is going west, west of the SH 71 split.
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20221026-austin_047-1600.JPG (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20221026-austin_047-1600.JPG)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20221026-austin_047-1600.JPG&hash=ed0c2bacd34aa7f8b2a7d28f2fa5d3ae09560826)

Eastbound approaching SH 71
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20221026-austin_061-1600.JPG (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20221026-austin_061-1600.JPG)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20221026-austin_061-1600.JPG&hash=23b7ab2a8eb35933e71d24b24cc8caf304878d3f)

Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 30, 2022, 09:54:29 AM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 29, 2022, 05:03:06 PM
Turning US-29 to a freeway from Austin to Segovia will take from a very very very small portion of it.  I want to see it and don't want the aesthetics to get in the way.  You want to look at the hill country, that's great.  Exit the freeway and enjoy!

Since when US-29 had been extended from Florida to Texas? ;)

Somehow, he must not have completely failed. They didn't make a zero.

nothing new, just more details on the freeway of the Oak Hill Parkway
https://www.fox7austin.com/news/oak-hill-parkway-project-us-290-sh-71-austin-texas

also it's already been a year of construction there already

The article mentions the intersection of two freeways at Oak Hill? The "Y" split with US-290 and TX-71 will sort of seem like a split of two freeways, but AFAIK TX-71 will drop down to its current 5-lane not-divided configuration after leaving US-290 toward Bee Cave.

The article has the usual comments from people complaining about the disruptions caused by construction. Most will like the finished project though (even if they don't want to admit it). More of those disruptions from construction are sure to happen farther West. US-290 already needs to be widened in a similar manner past the current project end at the Circle Drive Y. TX DOT might be able to squeeze a freeway in the existing US-290 ROW going past the Belterra Village shopping center. A new terrain route will be necessary to get around Dripping Springs.

The direct connector ramps between 290 and 71 take so long to rejoin the 71 mainlanes that the highway will function as a bit of a super two. The connectors bridge over two cross streets. They may also just be referring to "two freeways" in the sense that both 290 and 71 are designations on the Ben White freeway.

TxDOT has scheduled a public meeting (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/austin/us290-011624.html) for the freeway extension west of the Oak Hill Y project.

The news in this announcement is that the west project limit extends to "just west of RM 12 in Dripping Springs".  This means it will need to go through or around Dripping Springs. We should find out the plan when the meeting materials are posted next month. For those not familiar, the intersection at US 290 and RM 12 in Dripping Springs is severely congested.

Quote from: MaxConcrete on December 18, 2023, 02:14:38 PM
TxDOT has scheduled a public meeting (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/austin/us290-011624.html) for the freeway extension west of the Oak Hill Y project.

The news in this announcement is that the west project limit extends to "just west of RM 12 in Dripping Springs".  This means means it will need to through or around Dripping Springs. We should find out the plan when the meeting materials are posted next month. For those not familiar, the intersection at US 290 and RM 12 in Dripping Springs is severely congested.

I'm glad they're doing that. The current road is a death trap.

Now that'll be one hell of a project. US 290 is a very developed corridor in Dripping Springs. I'll be interested to see how they squeeze a freeway through.

The updated fact sheet has an environmental decision scheduled for just next year. If they can pull that off in such an anti-freeway environment I'll be very impressed. It seems like the design is pretty far along, though; TxDOT already has acquisition estimates up.

QuoteThe proposed project would, subject to final design considerations, require additional right of way and potentially displace 12 residences and 83 non-residential structures.

EDIT: I also see now on the fact sheet that a "planning and feasibility study" was completed in 2020. That must have been internal because I haven't heard a peep about it as a nearby resident.

Quote from: Echostatic on December 18, 2023, 05:18:05 PM
Now that'll be one hell of a project. US 290 is a very developed corridor in Dripping Springs. I'll be interested to see how they squeeze a freeway through.

The updated fact sheet has an environmental decision scheduled for just next year. If they can pull that off in such an anti-freeway environment I'll be very impressed. It seems like the design is pretty far along, though; TxDOT already has acquisition estimates up.

QuoteThe proposed project would, subject to final design considerations, require additional right of way and potentially displace 12 residences and 83 non-residential structures.

EDIT: I also see now on the fact sheet that a "planning and feasibility study" was completed in 2020. That must have been internal because I haven't heard a peep about it as a nearby resident.

They wisely left in large setbacks between the road and adjacent properties, so it shouldn't be too hard. They'd did a similar thing in San Antonio to US 281

At first glance I'm a bit surprised any consideration would be given to building a freeway thru the Dripping Springs area over the existing US-290 alignment. But when one looks at the bypass options to "go around" Dripping Springs, upgrading the existing alignment makes a little more sense.

Nearly all of the properties next to the existing US-290 highway are commercial. Any bypass trying to go around the commercial development along US-290 is going to impact homes. A lot of new homes have been built (and other are getting built) on the North side. Quite a few other residential properties are scattered around the South side. Weighing the options, there might be less political blow-back to clearing out a few dozen commercial buildings than there would be from taking homes.

It's kind of interesting that the proposed project would end just West of the RM-12 intersection with US-290. TX DOT will end up having to press on farther West with the freeway upgrades.

Just looking at Google Street View imagery in Dripping Springs it's easy to tell traffic levels are just nuts there. Honestly, the job with US-290 is not going to be finished until it is upgraded to limited access all the way to the US-281 corridor. From there, the state (or feds) can look at Interstate-quality outlet options for Austin to reach I-10.

Quote from: kernals12They wisely left in large setbacks between the road and adjacent properties, so it shouldn't be too hard.

I don't know the areas of US-290 you're talking about. Going thru Dripping Springs itself the existing properties are not set far back at all from the existing 5-lane surface street. Hell, it's going to be a mess just pushing the freeway past Circle Drive where the current expansion project ends. There are plenty of zones where clusters of properties are hugging the US-290 ROW too close for comfort.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 18, 2023, 07:27:20 PM

Quote from: kernals12They wisely left in large setbacks between the road and adjacent properties, so it shouldn't be too hard.

I don't know the areas of US-290 you're talking about. Going thru Dripping Springs itself the existing properties are not set far back at all from the existing 5-lane surface street. Hell, it's going to be a mess just pushing the freeway past Circle Drive where the current expansion project ends. There are plenty of zones where clusters of properties are hugging the US-290 ROW too close for comfort.

I'm referring to things like this. Look at all the bare land between the road and the parking lot of the shopping center

The segment of US-290 in front of the Belterra Village Shopping Center would be one of the easier portions to upgrade. And that's not saying much since the existing ROW is, at best, about 250' wide. The Oak Hill project currently in progress is widening US-290 to a 400' wide footprint.

TX DOT is going to have to buy and remove a lot of commercial properties between Circle Drive and RM-12 to upgrade that part of US-290 into a freeway. But that's going to be a lesser evil compared to trying to punch a new terrain bypass through a bunch of residential properties.

Considering how rapidly a lot of areas near US-290 have filled in with new home builds it looks like upgrading the existing US-290 alignment is the only feasible option.

Yeah, Belterra Village is easy. The hard parts are the older commercial developments right up against the road. You can really see the difference between new-build setbacks and the older stuff in this example:

(https://i.imgur.com/sMpH2E1.png)

And other stretches aren't much better. TxDOT says they're going to build a 3x3 freeway with frontage roads for the entire length. I suspect they won't build it to quite the same standards as the Oak Hill Parkway, but comparing the old and new widths of the roadway for that project... It'll be a squeeze no matter what they do.

(https://i.imgur.com/6IEzz8C.png)

This is by far the most challenging segment in Downtown Dripping Springs. The project ends at the intersection on the left.

(https://i.imgur.com/elG2LD5.png)

EDIT: The narrowest section of 3x3 freeway with frontage roads in Austin that I could find was 250'. Here's what that width looks like in some trouble spots.

(https://i.imgur.com/evbzlE2.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/HNKHA8K.png)

And the 400' width of Oak Hill Parkway:

(https://i.imgur.com/4pTGvaU.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/YLmZpl9.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/lXZ06T0.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/xK3AMdP.png)

I'm not an expert on eminent domain legal issues, but from observation of past highway projects it seems like it is much easier both legally and politically to buy and remove commercial properties than it is residential properties (particularly homes that belong to people in higher income categories). I'm sure there will be plenty of outcry from business owners being forced to relocate. But that won't be as nasty a situation as bulldozing over a bunch of homes.

Massive property removals have taken place before. The Katy Freeway widening project demolished a whole bunch of existing buildings to make room. One example that blew my mind was a visual face-lift project for US-1 near the Quantico Marine Base front entrance. The town of Triangle used to have a bunch of commercial properties on the edge of US-1. They tore down all the businesses on both sides of US-1 from VA-619 up to a "Y" split at Bradys Hill Road. They re-built that part of US-1 and preseved the vacant land as green space. That location is unrecognizable compared to how it looked 20 years ago.

Quote from: EchostaticYeah, Belterra Village is easy. The hard parts are the older commercial developments right up against the road.

I expect TX DOT will have to raze most of the chain stores and other businesses along one side of US-290 to create the amount of ROW needed for a 3x3 freeway plus frontage roads. They may not build it on a 400' wide ROW. It's very do-able to squeeze such a thing into a 300' wide space. But the ROW width can't be shaved down much more from that without affecting the design of slip ramps.

There is a short segment of US-74 on the SE side of Charlotte (just outside the I-485 loop) that shows the limits of how tight a 3x3 freeway with frontage roads can be squeezed. There is a portion of it that fits within a 250' wide ROW. But it leaves very little remaining space for ramps.

TX DOT may have to build something packed in tight just like that and then only "flare out" the ROW in places where slip ramps are needed.

I'd be shocked if TXDOT is able to get a freeway all the way through Dripping Springs, too many takings required and a very wealthy populous of lawyers and techsters that will scream, "It will destroy our community!"  (Though they'll be mostly silent about a freeway east of there to Austin that benefits them.)

Perhaps the best realistic outcome will be an 8-lane road (maybe just 6) with local side access and jersey barriers or an unbroken median instead of a center turn lane, with an overpass and u-turn lanes about every mile.  As long as it is free flow and at least 45 mph that's probably a good enough improvement.  Though the OCD crowd may double over in pain from not being eligible for a meaningless interstate designation.

I don't know. If TX DOT is willing to upgrade US-290 into a freeway along its existing ROW all the way to the intersection with RM-12 in the center of Dripping Springs it makes quite a statement.

Traffic along US-290 in Dripping Springs is already pretty bad. Despite increasingly ridiculous housing prices Austin is still one of the fastest growing metros in the nation. Lots of new housing units are going up on the metro's West side. That's just going to put more and more strain on US-290.

Of all the commercial properties in Dripping Springs sitting next to US-290, none of them are "culturally significant." I wouldn't consider many of those properties to be objectively attractive either. If anything, a new US-290 freeway pushed directly thru Dripping Springs could actually help clean up some of the clutter. A freeway would definitely help move thru traffic better. US-290 has at least half a dozen traffic signals there. Long term planning maps show proposals to extend TX-45 farther West to merge into US-290. That would increase the need to extend a US-290 freeway even farther West, probably all the way to the US-281 corridor.

I think the bigger obstacle would be the town of Dripping Springs objecting to the loss of tax revenue from those businesses.

But then again, being connected by a freeway to Austin would mean a big boom in overall property values.

Quote from: kernals12 on December 26, 2023, 08:16:17 AM
I think the bigger obstacle would be the town of Dripping Springs objecting to the loss of tax revenue from those businesses.

But then again, being connected by a freeway to Austin would mean a big boom in overall property values.

The best way to preserve the ROW thru the most congested part of DS (west of RR12) is to build a depressed freeway with the frontage roads hanging slightly over the mainlanes, or even a short tunnel. Really, only one set of on/off ramps are needed and they can be built well east or west of that area where there's more ROW.

Quote from: kernals12I think the bigger obstacle would be the town of Dripping Springs objecting to the loss of tax revenue from those businesses.

They would be more than making up for any sales tax losses from those businesses next to the road via the huge sums of property tax money they'll be getting from all those new homes continuing to be built in the area.

Also, it's very likely many businesses would re-build along the new highway frontages.

Quote from: thisdj78The best way to preserve the ROW thru the most congested part of DS (west of RR12) is to build a depressed freeway with the frontage roads hanging slightly over the mainlanes, or even a short tunnel. Really, only one set of on/off ramps are needed and they can be built well east or west of that area where there's more ROW.

I wouldn't expect TX DOT to do anything like that. If so, they would have already tried that approach in the Oak Hill area. That construction project cleared dozens of properties next to the old highway. They'll have to clear even more properties to expand the highway 11 miles West of the current project end at Circle Drive. TX DOT has no other choice. Too many new, expensive homes have been built North and South of US-290. A new terrain path would be more problematic than merely upgrading the existing highway.

If TX DOT is able to extend the US-290 freeway to RM 12 they'll have only about 3.5 miles farther West to go to finish pushing the freeway through Dripping Springs. I can imagine them using a "skinny" highway design to squeeze frontage roads and main lanes together to use as little ROW as possible. But buying up existing commercial properties, even at a premium price, is still going to be far less expensive than digging the highway into a trench or tunnel. I would expect a new freeway to have at least 3 lanes in each direction. Even with a space-saving design the ROW would still span 200' to 250' (not counting slip ramps).

From the West edge of Dripping Springs it's only another 15 miles farther to the US-281 corridor. That segment would be much easier to upgrade to Interstate standards. Getting past Dripping Springs it might also be acceptable to build a new freeway with 2x2 lanes and non-continuous frontage roads.

Quote from: thisdj78 on December 26, 2023, 09:45:38 AM

Quote from: kernals12 on December 26, 2023, 08:16:17 AM
I think the bigger obstacle would be the town of Dripping Springs objecting to the loss of tax revenue from those businesses.

But then again, being connected by a freeway to Austin would mean a big boom in overall property values.

The best way to preserve the ROW thru the most congested part of DS (west of RR12) is to build a depressed freeway with the frontage roads hanging slightly over the mainlanes, or even a short tunnel. Really, only one set of on/off ramps are needed and they can be built well east or west of that area where there's more ROW.

TxDOT isn't willing to pay for a tunnel for the widening of I-35 in Austin, there's no way they'd do it for some podunk town out in Hill Country, even if lots of rich people live nearby.

60% design schematics have been released. The highway will be 3x3 with a substantial frontage road for its entire length. There will be intersections with Circle Drive/Fitzhugh Road, Nutty Brown Road, Belterra Drive, Sawyer Ranch Road, Trautwein Road, Headwaters Boulevard, and Village Grove Parkway. The freeway will end at Lone Peak Way.

https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/aus/us-290-from-oak-hill-to-dripping-springs/011624-schematic.pdf
(https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/aus/us-290-from-oak-hill-to-dripping-springs/011624-schematic.pdf)
This looks to be easily the second most substantial highway project in Austin's history, behind only the upcoming I-35 works Downtown for Capital Express Central. This is over 11 miles of 3x3 highway. An estimated cost is no longer listed but I would expect it approaches $2 billion.

I won't post the entire schematics here, but here are the intersections and other highlights:

Intersection with Circle Drive and South View Road (western project limits and end of Oak Hill Parkway construction):
(https://i.imgur.com/TDEbmLg.png)

Intersection with Circle Drive, Fitzhugh Road, and Spring Valley Road:
(https://i.imgur.com/WhSmlLB.png)

Intersection with Nutty Brown Road and Oak Branch Drive:
(https://i.imgur.com/3E4dJE4.png)

Highway section through the Belterra Village shopping center:
(https://i.imgur.com/VQgvs7Y.png)

Intersection with Belterra Drive and Heritage Oaks Drive:
(https://i.imgur.com/UpXmqRa.png)

Intersection with Sawyer Ranch Road and Polo Club Drive:
(https://i.imgur.com/VqqrlFq.png)

Intersection with Trautwein Road:
(https://i.imgur.com/LHfwFzK.png)

Intersection with Headwaters Boulevard and Hays Country Acres Road:
(https://i.imgur.com/vrjUsiF.png)

Intersection with Village Grove Parkway (end of frontage roads and last controlled access intersection):
(https://i.imgur.com/3glGlXv.png)

Arterial section through Downtown Dripping Springs:
(https://i.imgur.com/lmtTUDB.png)

My observations

• While the project limits have been extended to be west of RM 12 in Dripping Springs, the freeway stops on the east side of Dripping Springs, and the proposed facility in Dripping Springs is just a plain six-lane street, and has three traffic signals shown. The signalized intersections look underdesigned to me, for example I would expect the left turn from westbound 290 to southbound RM 12 to have two lanes (but it has only one). The lack of a freeway or bypass in Dripping Springs is a disappointment and is sure to be a problem point, probably immediately after the project is built.
• The right-of-way width has been reduced from the originally proposed 400-foot-wide corridor (122m) to a typical 321 feet (98m) shown in the presentation. However, it appears to be mostly between 300 and 321 feet, including one section west of Trautwein road which is shown as 240 feet and has zero space between the main lanes and frontage roads.
• Due to the narrow right-of-way, there is a center barrier with no median and minimal space between the main lanes and frontage roads, which will make it difficult or impossible to add lanes in the future. Of course, Austin has never planned for future growth, so this is not unexpected.
• The narrow corridor leaves little or no space for landscaping
• The east end of the project has a 2.6-mile-long section with no crossings. (Spring Valley to West View)
• The freeway design is very basic and routine. All intersections except one are standard overpasses (main lanes on top), and there is one underpass with the main lanes on bottom.
• Echostatic speculated a cost of $2 billion, but I think that is too high. This is all plain-jane basic freeway, nothing fancy, so I'm thinking more like between $1 and $1.5 billion

In spite of the disappointing design features, I still hope to see this proceed. After all this is Austin where it is difficult to build anything, and you need to take what you can get. Planning for this corridor is decades late, so we can expect the planning failure to have some consequences.

With the proposed freeway ending at Lone Peak Way it looks like TX DOT is succumbing to procrastination or budgetary limits. They're putting off the really difficult task of building a freeway through or around Dripping Springs. On the bright side, at least TX DOT is pushing the US-290 freeway this far West.

The widening project they're planning through part of Dripping Springs (a six lane street going a couple or so blocks West of the RM-12 intersection) could end up being an interim solution. Dripping Springs spans 4 miles West of the intersection with Lone Peak Way. A lot of stuff is already built up in Dripping Springs. With as long as it will take to extend the US-290 freeway to the doorstep of Dripping Springs I'm sure a lot more new buildings will go up in the meantime.

Just from looking at Google Earth overhead imagery (6/2023) the only feasible way I can see TX DOT possibly bypassing Dripping Springs is by maybe wiping out the HEB and Home Depot stores to create an exit path for a Southern bypass around town.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 17, 2024, 01:12:21 AM
With the proposed freeway ending at Lone Peak Way it looks like TX DOT is succumbing to procrastination or budgetary limits.

Those that actually get things built work in the real world where money doesn't grow on trees.

This is a huge win for now.  Will eliminate at least 10 stoplights and several more that would have eventually been built if this section wasn't converted to a freeway or expressway.  Higher speed limits, much safer, and faster and less hassles for all the locals that have to turn left, cross, or turn right without being stuck behind left turners.  Some real time savings for through traffic.

Win the incremental battles you can now and keep fighting the war long term.  Holding out for perfection might have resulting in some of this section never getting built.  Together, the Austin-San Antonio regions are adding more people per year than even Houston, second only to DFW.  That growth will eventually lead to a new push for limited access expansion westward, and perhaps a better political mix to overcome a local NIMBY population that by then may be a much smaller percentage of the overall mix of users.  Hays County is likely to continue to keep that area about as low density as possible ("Muh views!"), despite small individual subdivisions popping up, they'll continue to be watered down by a high percentage of large lot semi-rural areas.  Unclear yet how Blanco County will go, but perhaps mostly similar.  Increasing traffic from the San Antonio side of 281 as an option to I-35, but we still may be 20 years or more from being at the same stage for through and west of Drip S as we are now for east.  And that's probably ok.

With 9 lights in less than 3 miles in Drip S, and probably more will be added to the west side as growth continues (they appear to need to add a light for every place a squirrel crosses the street) there will eventually be pressure to upgrade or bypass.  I'm curious why they didn't go ahead and grade separate Lone Peak Way, it looks like the land was available.  Perhaps that's about where a southern bypass might divert.  Get the freeway under construction, where's it would be really hard to cancel, then start the next battle for preserving ROW of a bypass (or upgrade through town to a stoplight eliminating super street, which would be a sufficient compromise over the more brutal takings and expense, dollars and political, of a freeway).

Quote from: armadillo speedbumpWin the incremental battles you can now and keep fighting the war long term.  Holding out for perfection might have resulting in some of this section never getting built.

I wasn't suggesting they build the whole thing at once. The initial idea did call for the freeway to end at the RM-12 intersection in Dripping Springs. The updated proposal has the freeway stopping on the East edge of town. That's a lot better than nothing though.

Quote from: armadillo speedbumpI'm curious why they didn't go ahead and grade separate Lone Peaks Way, it looks like the land was available.  Perhaps that's about where a southern bypass might divert.

I'm guessing they chose not to grade separate the intersection with Lone Peak Way because there is much more travel room between that intersection and the next streets compared to the intersections with RM-12 or Rob Shelton Blvd. There is more space for vehicles to slow down from freeway speeds. Not much is built around the Lone Peak Way intersection. Development is more packed in at the intersection with RM-12.

If TX DOT did divert a US-290 freeway South of Dripping Springs it would have to take a pretty hard turn South before reaching Lone Peak Way to avoid bulldozing the H•E•B store and Home Depot. Still, at least some properties would have to be removed before a South bypass could reach open area near Onion Creek.

By the time they can get the US-290 freeway built to Lone Peak Way (and do the other 6-lane street upgrade work farther into town) a whole lot more structures are going to get built around that area. Hopefully the 6-lane street widening project inside Dripping Springs will give TX DOT an opportunity to secure at least some "buffer" ROW for future use. It's inevitable they'll eventually have to push the US-290 freeway farther West entirely thru Dripping Springs and at least as far as the US-281 corridor. Just like what they're doing now, they'll probably be stuck having to upgrade along the existing US-290 alignment. It's mostly commercial properties along that path. A bypass either North or South will involve removing some homes. Depending on how many years it takes to get this new freeway segment built there could be a lot of home standing in the path of a bypass by then.

TxDOT must be planning to phase the construction by first building frontage roads before putting in a freeway. There clearly is not a current need for such a large highway.

Where is it said that this freeway will be slowly built out in phases? I sure don't see them building out a pair of frontage roads just to let a wide median sit empty for years on end.

The current 5-lane non-divided road is already packed with traffic leading into Dripping Springs. A pair of 2-lane frontage roads would do nothing to help that traffic move any more efficiently.

I'm pretty sure the new freeway will get built in phases more like what is happening with the current Oak Hill project leading up to Circle Drive. The whole thing is a continuing project until it's finished. There's ROW clearing, a new frontage road gets built on the far end, traffic shifts to the new frontage road while part of the old highway gets replaced by the other frontage road. Meanwhile the main freeway lanes get built.

Westbound US 290 & SH 71 Mainlanes — Bridge over William Cannon Drive, Williamson Creek, & Westbound Frontage Road
(https://i.imgur.com/fjnvJlph.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/kLs9hPeh.jpg)

Eastbound Frontage Road — Retaining Walls and Sound Wall east of Convict Hill Road
(https://i.imgur.com/BIZ5qsrh.jpg)

The most impressive structure is the stacked Westbound bridge that carries the Frontage Road on the lower level and the US 290 & SH 71 Mainlanes on the upper level, but I couldn't snag a photo of it today. It's massive.

The contractors opened a stretch of new eastbound frontage road today, including the third of the project's many new bridges across Williamson Creek. They also routed eastbound traffic onto the rebuilt and widened portion of the existing freeway that had been closed for over a year, from the previous terminus at McCarty Lane eastwards to about Westcreek Drive.

(https://www.oakhillparkway.com/upload/images/231002_EBFR_Wm_Cannon_to_Old_Fre.jpg)