Fredericksburg (TX): preferred alignment of US 290 bypass announced

[sprjus4]

Houston is a huge city.  There is definitely demand to have both corridors improved.

There are two separate freeway corridors connecting NYC to New Haven, CT (Merritt Pkwy, I-95), so doing something similar here would not be wasteful.

While two corridors could be warranted, a limited budget would likely dictate only one corridor built to interstate standards.

SH-71 is built to expressway standards, essentially maintaining a 65 - 75 mph speed limit throughout, having no traffic signals, and having town bypasses, except for a few signals closer to Austin set to be replaced by interchanges in the next decade. I-10 to SH-71 is beneficial for those living in the southern part of the city, less so for the rest.

US-290 on the other hand, while largely expressway standard, still has traffic signals occasionally, and goes through a few towns. US-290 is better positioned to serve the whole metro with adequate connections to both beltways.

[texaskdog]

Houston is a huge city.  There is definitely demand to have both corridors improved.

There are two separate freeway corridors connecting NYC to New Haven, CT (Merritt Pkwy, I-95), so doing something similar here would not be wasteful.

While two corridors could be warranted, a limited budget would likely dictate only one corridor built to interstate standards.

SH-71 is built to expressway standards, essentially maintaining a 65 - 75 mph speed limit throughout, having no traffic signals, and having town bypasses, except for a few signals closer to Austin set to be replaced by interchanges in the next decade. I-10 to SH-71 is beneficial for those living in the southern part of the city, less so for the rest.

US-290 on the other hand, while largely expressway standard, still has traffic signals occasionally, and goes through a few towns. US-290 is better positioned to serve the whole metro with adequate connections to both beltways.

plus anyone who takes it has to take 35 through downtown Austin and already too much traffic there.  I'd side with 71

[sprjus4]

Houston is a huge city.  There is definitely demand to have both corridors improved.

There are two separate freeway corridors connecting NYC to New Haven, CT (Merritt Pkwy, I-95), so doing something similar here would not be wasteful.

While two corridors could be warranted, a limited budget would likely dictate only one corridor built to interstate standards.

SH-71 is built to expressway standards, essentially maintaining a 65 - 75 mph speed limit throughout, having no traffic signals, and having town bypasses, except for a few signals closer to Austin set to be replaced by interchanges in the next decade. I-10 to SH-71 is beneficial for those living in the southern part of the city, less so for the rest.

US-290 on the other hand, while largely expressway standard, still has traffic signals occasionally, and goes through a few towns. US-290 is better positioned to serve the whole metro with adequate connections to both beltways.

plus anyone who takes it has to take 35 through downtown Austin and already too much traffic there.  I'd side with 71

Not if you're going to Downtown or everything north of there, largely where growth is.

At least improving US-290, the more unimproved corridor, would allow two functioning free-flowing corridors - both SH-71 and US-290. If you upgrade SH-71, you still leave parts of US-290 non-Expressway.

[ethanhopkin14]

Houston is a huge city.  There is definitely demand to have both corridors improved.

There are two separate freeway corridors connecting NYC to New Haven, CT (Merritt Pkwy, I-95), so doing something similar here would not be wasteful.

While two corridors could be warranted, a limited budget would likely dictate only one corridor built to interstate standards.

SH-71 is built to expressway standards, essentially maintaining a 65 - 75 mph speed limit throughout, having no traffic signals, and having town bypasses, except for a few signals closer to Austin set to be replaced by interchanges in the next decade. I-10 to SH-71 is beneficial for those living in the southern part of the city, less so for the rest.

US-290 on the other hand, while largely expressway standard, still has traffic signals occasionally, and goes through a few towns. US-290 is better positioned to serve the whole metro with adequate connections to both beltways.

plus anyone who takes it has to take 35 through downtown Austin and already too much traffic there.  I'd side with 71

Not if you're going to Downtown or everything north of there, largely where growth is.

At least improving US-290, the more unimproved corridor, would allow two functioning free-flowing corridors - both SH-71 and US-290. If you upgrade SH-71, you still leave parts of US-290 non-Expressway.

It's 97 miles being bypassed by Interstate 35W, not 85 miles, which is the length of the bypass, but I digress. 
One thing throughout this discussion is everyone just hops on google maps and measures distances.  SEE SEE, I TOLD YOU, ITS NOT THAT BETTER A DISTANCE.  For the sake of reality, I have put together a fair routing of the proposed interstate, we will call Interstate 10N.  From west to east:
I left the routing from the intersection of Interstate 10 and Interstate 10N to the west side Harper completely unchanged: 15.90 miles.
I then used a new terrain alignment, sometimes using the current US 290 alignment, sometimes not.  I didn't just throw a straight line that goes through a cemetery and a airport or two, just to say I told you so.  I carefully picked an alignment of least resistance, avoiding homes and businesses.  Yes, some will have to be displaced, that's road building, but I avoided large subdivisions (remember, I have been thinking about this for at least 20 years, so this route is not something I pulled out today).  I find it to be quite fair because it does a fair amount of curving to avoid the houses, cemeteries, churches, dog houses, ect. Plus gives Harper a bypass, which if you ask me isn't needed.  I bet the people who live in Harper wouldn't miss the place if it was leveled.  This alignment runs from the west side of Harper to Circle Drive on the west side of Austin: 85.91 miles
Third, I used the US 290 alignment from Circle Drive through Ben White Blvd., and all of SH-71 to Columbus.  I feel this alignment will see very little, if no, displacement.  The freeway can be upgraded on the spot, eliminate a blind hill or two, and straighten a curve, and that's it (even the section through Elinger where you have to go 55 can stay because there is room to bulldoze the old barns on the south side of the R.O.W.): 96.4 miles
Grand Total for Interstate 10N: 198.21 miles
From the I-10/US 290 intersection (mile post 477) to the I-10/SH-71 intersection (mile post 695): 218 miles
That should put this discussion to bed.  If you thing 20 miles over 218 miles isn't a good enough value, then that's your opinion and you can have that.  I however if given the option when driving of a shorter route (and both routes are freeways), short of me trying to clinch a highway, I am taking the shorter route even if its 0.5 miles shorter.  When I am driving 15-21 hours, I like to shave off as many minutes as possible. 
Don't try to 1604 me and say with upgrading that's a good enough bypass.  WE don't take I-610 into consideration when you compare I-12 to I-10 through New Orleans, nor do we take I-20 to Loop -12 into consideration when you are comparing I-35E to I-35W.  I don't think it's fair to try to say there is no need for a overall different routing if you can get on the urban loop.  Beside the fact that 1604 is a nightmare to drive, and even though they are improving it, you know the finished product will be like every TxDOT project.  When it's done it will be 15 to 20 years too late and already obsolete.  We are comparing apples to apples.  One route over another, not one route vs. another route who gets help from other routes.  It's the Cowboys vs. the 49ers, not the Cowboys vs. the 49ers and they get help from the Chiefs, Packers and Patriots.  We are no longer comparing an established routing of a freeway against a US Highway routing that has concurrencies for 5 miles going in unnecessary directions where you slap a google maps pin on it and call it good. 
Maybe I messed up the verbiage to begin with.  I kept saying San Antonio bypass.  It is not, it is simply a route approaching twin cities with a choice to go to Austin or San Antonio.  If you are going to one of those two cities, take the appropriate road.  If not, and you are going to points beyond, you have a choice, both routes go to the same place, but one is definitely shorter than the other.  All the same principals as I-35E/I-35W.
I am mystified how much blowback I am getting over this on a forum of roadgeeks; the same forum that has people legitimately wanting an interstate route from Amarillo to Raton, NM and everyone agrees how great this idea is, or about how Texarkana should have another auxiliary interstate making the total 4 routes (a town if you took both state's halves might make it to 80,000) and that everyone thinks build I-14 all the way out to Ft. Stockton so it can parallel an already desolate route.  Everyone seems to all agree with these superfluous routes, yet I am trying to connect El Paso, Austin and Houston via interstate, a routing that would connect a metro area over a million (not counting the international population) to a metro area over 2 million to the 4th largest city in the country and 5th largest metro area in the country and everyone wants to act like a 2 lane highway is more than enough.  The old good enough attitude is what got us the interstate highway system in the first place.  Ike saw that our lame excuse of a system was in fact lame.  When the system was built, not every routing had massive traffic.  I was just in Deming this past week and I-10 went several minutes with no one on it, but it's all part of a larger plan.  Let's for the first time ever build a road before we are forced to do it because we have no choice!

Remember how the system was built.  Connecting large city to large city.  Downtown to Downtown.  Never was it connecting suburbs.  This routing connects El Paso-Austin-Houston, not The Woodlands to Georgetown.  So when you live in Surprise, AZ, do you get upset that I-17 and I-10 don't go through your suburb and ask for them to intersect in your town?  No, you just deal with it.  The interstates are to connect the large city of the hub, then you take local roads to get to the satellite towns.  That's how the system works.  So stop with the lame excuses about how there is more growth in area A over area B so area B doesn't deserve the new interstate.  It's been done before, it's all over the country. 

[MaxConcrete]

At least improving US-290, the more unimproved corridor, would allow two functioning free-flowing corridors - both SH-71 and US-290. If you upgrade SH-71, your still leave parts of US-290 non-Expressway.

For anyone hoping/dreaming that US 290 between Houston and Austin may be designated to have interstate standards, your dream is now almost surely dead.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/houston/072120.html

This section is west of Hempstead, and is adjacent to the freeway between Houston and Hempstead. This is probably the most logical section to upgrade to freeway standards, to take the freeway to Brenham. But TxDOT is planning to upgrade it to a 6-lane (3x3) divided highway on the existing right-of-way, which is mostly 200 feet wide (except at the Brazos River, where the ROW is very wide).

This seems a little strange to me. I can't think of any 3x3 rural divided highways in Texas. If there is sufficient traffic for a 6-lane divided highway, then there's probably enough traffic to justify a full freeway.

The notice says "The proposed facility would include a six-lane roadway, which includes three 12-foot-wide travel lanes in each direction with 12-foot-wide inside and outside shoulders, and a median that varies from 20-28 feet wide." It also seems unusual to have the full inside 12-foot shoulder on a rural divided highway. With the narrow median width, there will need to be a concrete or wire rope barrier. It seems to me that the median will be too narrow for longer vehicles to fit when making left turns.

The limits of this project include the annoying traffic signal at Chappell Hill, but there is no mention of adding an overpass to eliminate the signal. I will definitely submit a comment about the need to eliminate that signal.

The notice says more info is "available online at www.txdot.gov, keyword US 290.", but I can't find anything.

[sprjus4]

For anyone hoping/dreaming that US 290 between Houston and Austin may be designated to have interstate standards, you dream is now almost surely dead.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/houston/072120.html

This section is west of Hempstead, and is adjacent to the freeway between Houston and Hempstead. This is probably the most logical section to upgrade to freeway standards, to take the freeway to Brenham. But TxDOT is planning to upgrade it to a 6-lane (3x3) divided highway on the existing right-of-way, which is mostly 200 feet wide (except at the Brazos River, where the ROW is very wide).

Doesn't mean that they couldn't go back later and improve it to interstate standards.

This seems a little strange to me. I can't think of any 3x3 rural divided highways in Texas. If there is sufficient traffic for a 6-lane divided highway, then there's probably enough traffic to justify a full freeway.

What's even more strange is why a 6 lane widening is even warranted. Traffic volumes between Chappell Hill and Hempstead are between 17,000 and 23,000 AADT, which is rural 4 lane divided highway is very capable of handling. Are there recurring congestion issues in this area?

Additionally, the freeway segment of US-290 east of SH-6 carries between 43,000 and 46,000 AADT and is also only 4 lanes. Are there plans to similarly expand this? This seems far more logical than west of SH-6.

Money would be far better spent on either A) upgrading US-290 between Hempstead and Chappell Hill or Brenham into a controlled-access 4 lane freeway by constructing continous frontage roads, ramps, and overpasses or B) widening US-290 between SH-6 and Prairie View (the aforementioned 4 lane freeway segment) to 6 lanes.

[ski-man]

You would actually need to expand to 3x3 from the Waller/Harris county line to TX-6. That is where the current 6 lane freeway ends.

Also, FYI, in Austin it is US-183, not TX-183. TX-183 is in DFW Metroplex.

[Echostatic]

TX 71 is the better corridor for a bypass, and the better connector for South-Central Austin and South-Central Houston. US 290 is better for the northern parts of both cities, but relatively useless for through traffic.

TX 71 would be a much shorter route to grade-separate because of the overlap with I-10, but I-10 would probably need an expansion to 3x3.

Frankly, why not both. If the state is seriously considering some of the wasteful western freeways like I-14 or Ports to Plains, it can definitely throw some money at both of these corridors. The demand is certainly there, especially on TX 71, which I travel on several times a year between the two cities.

[jlwm]

This seems a little strange to me. I can't think of any 3x3 rural divided highways in Texas.

US90A between SH6 and the Grand Parkway got widened from a 2x2 to a 3x3 rural divided highway a few years ago.
https://bit.ly/3ed8k9A

[sprjus4]

This seems a little strange to me. I can't think of any 3x3 rural divided highways in Texas.

US90A between SH6 and the Grand Parkway got widened from a 2x2 to a 3x3 rural divided highway a few years ago.
https://bit.ly/3ed8k9A

Not really rural.

[ethanhopkin14]

TX 71 would be a much shorter route to grade-separate because of the overlap with I-10, but I-10 would probably need an expansion to 3x3.

That is currently happening.  I suspect a final result to look like I-35 from Austin to Hillsborough

[sprjus4]

TX 71 would be a much shorter route to grade-separate because of the overlap with I-10, but I-10 would probably need an expansion to 3x3.

That is currently happening.  I suspect a final result to look like I-35 from Austin to Hillsborough

The 3x3 widening is happening out to US-77, and planned to eventually continue to San Antonio.

If SH-71 were to become a main interstate, that might draw more traffic off of US-290 and onto I-10 / SH-71, which may eventually require 8 lane widening out to that split. This also should be considered if SH-71 is to be the preferred alternative.

[ethanhopkin14]

TX 71 is the better corridor for a bypass, and the better connector for South-Central Austin and South-Central Houston. US 290 is better for the northern parts of both cities, but relatively useless for through traffic.

TX 71 would be a much shorter route to grade-separate because of the overlap with I-10, but I-10 would probably need an expansion to 3x3.

Frankly, why not both. If the state is seriously considering some of the wasteful western freeways like I-14 or Ports to Plains, it can definitely throw some money at both of these corridors. The demand is certainly there, especially on TX 71, which I travel on several times a year between the two cities.

Everything I have been saying for decades.  The US 290 corridor between Houston and Austin is a fine corridor for creating an interstate between Houston and Austin.  Sadly, it wouldn't change much.

Lets pretend we wake up tomorrow and a shiny interstate shield is on US-290 and the freeway is complete between Houston and Austin.  My feeling has always been nothing much will change.  The traffic that was always there will be there.  Some of the fringe people who live equidistant to both US 290 and SH 71 (people in Baytown or west Austin where it isn't much for them to take one over the other, but now one is an interstate!) will probably take the new interstate over SH 71.  That's really it.  It ends into I-610 in Houston and ends into and forces you on to I-35 through downtown Austin (unless you want to try to upgrade FM 2222 to an interstate, that my friends is a slippery slope, and that slope is uphill, 90 degrees and covered in ice).

It's not that I am against it being an interstate, although I despise that route, I just feel its a lot of potential waste if it were the first to upgrade.  SH 71 has so many other possibilities, not to mention it is a full continuous freeway though Austin (Come on Oak Hill freeway!  I have only been waiting 35 years).  IF SH 71 were an interstate, again yes everyone that currently takes it will still take it, plus those same fringe people will probably take the interstate now, but there will be so much through traffic that will benefit greatly because of it. 

[Scott5114]

Traffic is very light on US-290 to the West of Fredericksburg because it is a puny 2 lane road. If US-290 from Houston thru Austin and out West to I-10 was an Interstate class freeway it would carry a lot more traffic.

I...Induced demand, is that you?

For the sake of reality, I have put together a fair routing of the proposed interstate, we will call Interstate 10N. 

Oh God, don't give TxDOT ideas...

[kphoger]

Traffic is very light on US-290 to the West of Fredericksburg because it is a puny 2 lane road. If US-290 from Houston thru Austin and out West to I-10 was an Interstate class freeway it would carry a lot more traffic.

I...Induced demand, is that you?

Already debunked anyway as simply false.

Traffic is very light on US-290 to the West of Fredericksburg because it is a puny 2 lane road.

No it's not.  It's four lanes all the way to RM-385, except for a very short section of TWLTL.  West of that point, not a single data point breaks AADT 2000, despite the fact that it's a 75mph highway with wide paved shoulders.  At its junction with I-10, fewer than 1000 drivers use US-290.