Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[texaskdog]

While it already seems like its asking too much to fill the TX-45 gap between FM-1626 and I-35, I do have, um, "fantasies" shall we say, of TX-45 being fully built out as a super highway from TX-1 to FM-1826 AND extended farther West to US-290. The fantasy also includes US-290 being turned into an Interstate-class highway all the way out of the Western outskirts of metro Austin.

I saw a somewhat recent article that from Cedar Park it will extend over 620, and near four points head south between Steiner Ranch and River Place and then come out near Bee Cave. 

FOUND IT>>>> http://www.beecavebee.com/news/local-news/455-sh-45-w-proposal-garners-campo-support  it is 6 years old though

[aboges26]

While it already seems like its asking too much to fill the TX-45 gap between FM-1626 and I-35, I do have, um, "fantasies" shall we say, of TX-45 being fully built out as a super highway from TX-1 to FM-1826 AND extended farther West to US-290. The fantasy also includes US-290 being turned into an Interstate-class highway all the way out of the Western outskirts of metro Austin.

I saw a somewhat recent article that from Cedar Park it will extend over 620, and near four points head south between Steiner Ranch and River Place and then come out near Bee Cave. 

FOUND IT>>>> http://www.beecavebee.com/news/local-news/455-sh-45-w-proposal-garners-campo-support  it is 6 years old though

Knock me over with a feather!  I never have dreamed this was a consideration in reality.

[Bobby5280]

I see virtually zero chance of the North and South segments of TX-45 being linked by a Western toll road.

On the North end, FM 620 from TX-45 down to the FM-2222 intersection is badly overrun with commercial and residential development. Very little of that could be upgraded into a super highway without a great deal of cost and controversy. South of the FM-2222 intersection there a lot of hilly areas, some of which don't have any development...yet. Still, threading that down and over to the intersection with TX-45 and FM-1826 would be very tricky and involve clear a decent number of properties along the way.

It's just too bad TX DOT didn't work to secure ROW along that corridor decades ago. A wide street with a freeway size median would have been a good approach.

[texaskdog]

I see virtually zero chance of the North and South segments of TX-45 being linked by a Western toll road.

On the North end, FM 620 from TX-45 down to the FM-2222 intersection is badly overrun with commercial and residential development. Very little of that could be upgraded into a super highway without a great deal of cost and controversy. South of the FM-2222 intersection there a lot of hilly areas, some of which don't have any development...yet. Still, threading that down and over to the intersection with TX-45 and FM-1826 would be very tricky and involve clear a decent number of properties along the way.

It's just too bad TX DOT didn't work to secure ROW along that corridor decades ago. A wide street with a freeway size median would have been a good approach.

I think they would do it as an elevated freeway

[longhorn]

I see virtually zero chance of the North and South segments of TX-45 being linked by a Western toll road.

On the North end, FM 620 from TX-45 down to the FM-2222 intersection is badly overrun with commercial and residential development. Very little of that could be upgraded into a super highway without a great deal of cost and controversy. South of the FM-2222 intersection there a lot of hilly areas, some of which don't have any development...yet. Still, threading that down and over to the intersection with TX-45 and FM-1826 would be very tricky and involve clear a decent number of properties along the way.

It's just too bad TX DOT didn't work to secure ROW along that corridor decades ago. A wide street with a freeway size median would have been a good approach.

I think they would do it as an elevated freeway

Tree huggers allowing an elevated freeway in the lucrative hills of west Austin?............HAHAHAHHAHA..............That is a good one.

[texaskdog]

I see virtually zero chance of the North and South segments of TX-45 being linked by a Western toll road.

On the North end, FM 620 from TX-45 down to the FM-2222 intersection is badly overrun with commercial and residential development. Very little of that could be upgraded into a super highway without a great deal of cost and controversy. South of the FM-2222 intersection there a lot of hilly areas, some of which don't have any development...yet. Still, threading that down and over to the intersection with TX-45 and FM-1826 would be very tricky and involve clear a decent number of properties along the way.

It's just too bad TX DOT didn't work to secure ROW along that corridor decades ago. A wide street with a freeway size median would have been a good approach.

I think they would do it as an elevated freeway

Tree huggers allowing an elevated freeway in the lucrative hills of west Austin?............HAHAHAHHAHA..............That is a good one.

It does sound funny

[DorkOfNerky]

Is TX Loop 1 going to be extended south of TX 45? Maybe it could be another Austin-to-San Antonio relief route for Interstate 35.

I could see it being co-signed with 45 Southeast from its current southern terminus to 35 to create a complete "loop". (Similar to how it is signed for a short stretch with 45 North.)

This could help people to/from the west side of downtown and avoid the stretch of Ben White between 35 and Loop 1. Especially since there isn't a direct connection to Loop 1 northbound from 71/290 or 360. (That part of 360 backs up way too much for my liking.)

But this is just casual thinking on my part. I'm not putting any effort into this.

[Echostatic]

Ground has broken on two new overpasses for TX 71. Good steps for eventually making a freeway corridor to Columbus.

[sprjus4]

Ground has broken on two new overpasses for TX 71. Good steps for eventually making a freeway corridor to Columbus.

Is this project going to be tolled similar to the SH-130 interchange bypass? Also, are they going to widen that existing tolled segment to 4 lanes finally?

[MaxConcrete]

Ground has broken on two new overpasses for TX 71. Good steps for eventually making a freeway corridor to Columbus.

Is this project going to be tolled similar to the SH-130 interchange bypass? Also, are they going to widen that existing tolled segment to 4 lanes finally?

The new section is freeway. It won't be tolled.

I haven't seen any upcoming projects relating to widening that short tolled section. However, it may be under the jurisdiction of CTRMA, not TxDOT. Short tolled sections like the SH 71 section are super-annoying in my opinion. It's a relic of TxDOT's period of toll road hegemony.

I'm glad to see this freeway upgrade proceeding. Going back to the 1989-90 when I was attending UT-Austin, it was always a drag to nearly reach Austin coming from Houston and then encounter the traffic signals in this area. (although I don't know for a fact that there were signals at these two crossings). I also played a lot of recreation soccer games on the fields as Ross Road in the late 1990s.

[sprjus4]

I haven't seen any upcoming projects relating to widening that short tolled section. However, it may be under the jurisdiction of CTRMA, not TxDOT. Short tolled sections like the SH 71 section are super-annoying in my opinion. It's a relic of TxDOT's period of toll road hegemony.

Agreed, and they need to go with jurisdiction given back to TxDOT, similar to how they recently eliminated ramp tolls at SH-242 along I-45 outside Houston.

The segment needs to be widened to 4 lanes as well to provide a seamless expressway connection.

[longhorn]

So almost finished but points that still have me scratching my head.
1. There will be a lot of traffic going southbound 183 to 71 west, and no, do not want to pay a toll to have a nonstop connection or have to go through the Riverside intersection........Arrrrgh Txdot! Look closely you can see the concrete pour for an on ramp at the Riverside exit, so there is hope.



2. So TxDot replaces all the bridges in the 183/71 area but one. Did engineers decide they could get another 20 years out of it?

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2248216,-97.6823815,3a,75y,321.34h,83.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVJd_AZf_5d7WvNfkAkS3Dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[ethanhopkin14]

So almost finished but points that still have me scratching my head.
1. There will be a lot of traffic going southbound 183 to 71 west, and no, do not want to pay a toll to have a nonstop connection or have to go through the Riverside intersection........Arrrrgh Txdot! Look closely you can see the concrete pour for an on ramp at the Riverside exit, so there is hope.



2. So TxDot replaces all the bridges in the 183/71 area but one. Did engineers decide they could get another 20 years out of it?

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2248216,-97.6823815,3a,75y,321.34h,83.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVJd_AZf_5d7WvNfkAkS3Dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Heading in the direction of this photo (east), once you pass the intersection on SH-71, there is a Parking Spot with a direct connection parking lot, not to mention a Valero across the highway with driveways directly connecting to the highway.  This is the only non-freeway compliant area of SH-71/US-290 from just east of SH-130 to just west of Old Fredericksburg Road.  Before they extend the freeway both east and west, how will they rectify this area in the mix?

[Echostatic]

I imagine the Valero will be bought and removed, it's too close to the freeway for anything else. I imagine frontage road extensions will eventually happen on both sides of 71, connecting to Old Bastrop Highway on the north and a new ramp on the south. The whole area will need to accommodate construction of the elevated Blue Line in the late 2020s so I imagine changes will be made around then.

[thisdj78]

Here are the CAMPO 2045 arterial plans. Looks like they anticipate (or propose) that both 71 East and 290 East will be limited access, at last in the outer metro area:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hJvCstSua55osbz013HvPSKzf7Pw7G6b/view?usp=sharing

[sprjus4]

Here are the CAMPO 2045 arterial plans. Looks like they anticipate (or propose) that both 71 East and 290 East will be limited access, at last in the outer metro area:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hJvCstSua55osbz013HvPSKzf7Pw7G6b/view?usp=sharing

Nice to see both US-290 and SH-71 as limited access heading east... unfortunately US-290 to the west ends limited access at Dripping Springs. For a true long range plan, should extend out to US-281 at a minimum, or in this case, to the edge of the metropolitan planning area.

[Thegeet]

Here are the CAMPO 2045 arterial plans. Looks like they anticipate (or propose) that both 71 East and 290 East will be limited access, at last in the outer metro area:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hJvCstSua55osbz013HvPSKzf7Pw7G6b/view?usp=sharing

Nice to see both US-290 and SH-71 as limited access heading east... unfortunately US-290 to the west ends limited access at Dripping Springs. For a true long range plan, should extend out to US-281 at a minimum, or in this case, to the edge of the metropolitan planning area.

If US 290 we’re to be upgraded to limited access from Austin to Houston, I could see it become an interstate, as least to connect Houston to Austin. It could be a new designation, or Maybe it could be a continuation of I-12, (could be co-signed with I-10 from Houston (I-610 interchange) to Baton Rouge (western terminus), like 20/59 from MS to AL). Not saying it will become interstate though, but if it did indeed become one, would it still be cosigned with I-35 in Austin?

[sparker]

Here are the CAMPO 2045 arterial plans. Looks like they anticipate (or propose) that both 71 East and 290 East will be limited access, at last in the outer metro area:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hJvCstSua55osbz013HvPSKzf7Pw7G6b/view?usp=sharing

Nice to see both US-290 and SH-71 as limited access heading east... unfortunately US-290 to the west ends limited access at Dripping Springs. For a true long range plan, should extend out to US-281 at a minimum, or in this case, to the edge of the metropolitan planning area.

If US 290 we’re to be upgraded to limited access from Austin to Houston, I could see it become an interstate, as least to connect Houston to Austin. It could be a new designation, or Maybe it could be a continuation of I-12, (could be co-signed with I-10 from Houston (I-610 interchange) to Baton Rouge (western terminus), like 20/59 from MS to AL). Not saying it will become interstate though, but if it did indeed become one, would it still be cosigned with I-35 in Austin?

Unless it continued on west back to I-10, a multiplex with I-35 would be pointless; it would likely just end at its junction with that route.  Since we've let a bit of Fictional through the door -- it would likely be an independent western I-12; signage from Baton Rouge to Houston would be a bit gratuitous. 

[ethanhopkin14]

Here are the CAMPO 2045 arterial plans. Looks like they anticipate (or propose) that both 71 East and 290 East will be limited access, at last in the outer metro area:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hJvCstSua55osbz013HvPSKzf7Pw7G6b/view?usp=sharing

Nice to see both US-290 and SH-71 as limited access heading east... unfortunately US-290 to the west ends limited access at Dripping Springs. For a true long range plan, should extend out to US-281 at a minimum, or in this case, to the edge of the metropolitan planning area.

If US 290 we’re to be upgraded to limited access from Austin to Houston, I could see it become an interstate, as least to connect Houston to Austin. It could be a new designation, or Maybe it could be a continuation of I-12, (could be co-signed with I-10 from Houston (I-610 interchange) to Baton Rouge (western terminus), like 20/59 from MS to AL). Not saying it will become interstate though, but if it did indeed become one, would it still be cosigned with I-35 in Austin?

Unless it continued on west back to I-10, a multiplex with I-35 would be pointless; it would likely just end at its junction with that route.  Since we've let a bit of Fictional through the door -- it would likely be an independent western I-12; signage from Baton Rouge to Houston would be a bit gratuitous.

I-18.  I hate duplicated routes.

[sprjus4]

^ Don’t tell the grid sticklers 

[bwana39]

Here are the CAMPO 2045 arterial plans. Looks like they anticipate (or propose) that both 71 East and 290 East will be limited access, at last in the outer metro area:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hJvCstSua55osbz013HvPSKzf7Pw7G6b/view?usp=sharing

Nice to see both US-290 and SH-71 as limited access heading east... unfortunately US-290 to the west ends limited access at Dripping Springs. For a true long range plan, should extend out to US-281 at a minimum, or in this case, to the edge of the metropolitan planning area.

If US 290 we’re to be upgraded to limited access from Austin to Houston, I could see it become an interstate, as least to connect Houston to Austin. It could be a new designation, or Maybe it could be a continuation of I-12, (could be co-signed with I-10 from Houston (I-610 interchange) to Baton Rouge (western terminus), like 20/59 from MS to AL). Not saying it will become interstate though, but if it did indeed become one, would it still be cosigned with I-35 in Austin?

I have seen this idea pressed before. It is just a bunch of wasted signage.  The bottom line is in Texas the only roads that get Interstate designation are the ones that are / were funding dependent on being named an interstate (this was decades ago) and those mandated by congress.  The I-69 / I-2 disaster was mandated by congress. I-14 was a one off for Fort Hood.  The road in this discussion will almost surely remain as US-290. There probably won't be an Interstate number associated with it unless there was some sort of push from Washington (read restricted or earmarked funds).

As to the I-12 number. The way it should have worked was I-12 should have been a renumbered I-10 and I-10 from Baton Rouge to Slidell, should have been numbered as a 3DI or perhaps I-59.  Absent that, For sure I-610 should have been renumbered as I-10 and the downtown loop numbered as a 3DI.

[thisdj78]

Here are the CAMPO 2045 arterial plans. Looks like they anticipate (or propose) that both 71 East and 290 East will be limited access, at last in the outer metro area:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hJvCstSua55osbz013HvPSKzf7Pw7G6b/view?usp=sharing

Nice to see both US-290 and SH-71 as limited access heading east... unfortunately US-290 to the west ends limited access at Dripping Springs. For a true long range plan, should extend out to US-281 at a minimum, or in this case, to the edge of the metropolitan planning area.

If US 290 we’re to be upgraded to limited access from Austin to Houston, I could see it become an interstate, as least to connect Houston to Austin. It could be a new designation, or Maybe it could be a continuation of I-12, (could be co-signed with I-10 from Houston (I-610 interchange) to Baton Rouge (western terminus), like 20/59 from MS to AL). Not saying it will become interstate though, but if it did indeed become one, would it still be cosigned with I-35 in Austin?

Unless it continued on west back to I-10, a multiplex with I-35 would be pointless; it would likely just end at its junction with that route.  Since we've let a bit of Fictional through the door -- it would likely be an independent western I-12; signage from Baton Rouge to Houston would be a bit gratuitous.

Also, the Bergstrom Expressway just opened east of Austin, on which the designation could run…since it connects to 71 west. Versus dumping traffic on an already congested I-35.

[Thegeet]

Here are the CAMPO 2045 arterial plans. Looks like they anticipate (or propose) that both 71 East and 290 East will be limited access, at last in the outer metro area:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hJvCstSua55osbz013HvPSKzf7Pw7G6b/view?usp=sharing

Nice to see both US-290 and SH-71 as limited access heading east... unfortunately US-290 to the west ends limited access at Dripping Springs. For a true long range plan, should extend out to US-281 at a minimum, or in this case, to the edge of the metropolitan planning area.

If US 290 we’re to be upgraded to limited access from Austin to Houston, I could see it become an interstate, as least to connect Houston to Austin. It could be a new designation, or Maybe it could be a continuation of I-12, (could be co-signed with I-10 from Houston (I-610 interchange) to Baton Rouge (western terminus), like 20/59 from MS to AL). Not saying it will become interstate though, but if it did indeed become one, would it still be cosigned with I-35 in Austin?

I have seen this idea pressed before. It is just a bunch of wasted signage.  The bottom line is in Texas the only roads that get Interstate designation are the ones that are / were funding dependent on being named an interstate (this was decades ago) and those mandated by congress.  The I-69 / I-2 disaster was mandated by congress. I-14 was a one off for Fort Hood.  The road in this discussion will almost surely remain as US-290. There probably won't be an Interstate number associated with it unless there was some sort of push from Washington (read restricted or earmarked funds).

As to the I-12 number. The way it should have worked was I-12 should have been a renumbered I-10 and I-10 from Baton Rouge to Slidell, should have been numbered as a 3DI or perhaps I-59.  Absent that, For sure I-610 should have been renumbered as I-10 and the downtown loop numbered as a 3DI.

The only reason I think I-610 exists in LA is because they wanted I-10 to touch the center of the city.

Now, Austin is growing at a faster rate than ever, and they are all going to rely on only one Interstate, and toll roads. The only reason I thought of I-12 was for it being a route based in the south. But 16 or 18 would be fine. Now, If anything, I would check again a few decades and see any plans should they come to fruition to build a new Interstate in Austin.

[sprjus4]

Austin isn’t entirely toll roads, there are various toll free freeways there such as the Mopac, parts of US-183, US-290, and SH-71.

[ethanhopkin14]

Here are the CAMPO 2045 arterial plans. Looks like they anticipate (or propose) that both 71 East and 290 East will be limited access, at last in the outer metro area:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hJvCstSua55osbz013HvPSKzf7Pw7G6b/view?usp=sharing

Nice to see both US-290 and SH-71 as limited access heading east... unfortunately US-290 to the west ends limited access at Dripping Springs. For a true long range plan, should extend out to US-281 at a minimum, or in this case, to the edge of the metropolitan planning area.

If US 290 we’re to be upgraded to limited access from Austin to Houston, I could see it become an interstate, as least to connect Houston to Austin. It could be a new designation, or Maybe it could be a continuation of I-12, (could be co-signed with I-10 from Houston (I-610 interchange) to Baton Rouge (western terminus), like 20/59 from MS to AL). Not saying it will become interstate though, but if it did indeed become one, would it still be cosigned with I-35 in Austin?

Unless it continued on west back to I-10, a multiplex with I-35 would be pointless; it would likely just end at its junction with that route.  Since we've let a bit of Fictional through the door -- it would likely be an independent western I-12; signage from Baton Rouge to Houston would be a bit gratuitous.

Also, the Bergstrom Expressway just opened east of Austin, on which the designation could run…since it connects to 71 west. Versus dumping traffic on an already congested I-35.

This is why I have pushed for SH-71 east of Austin and US 290 west of Austin as the preferred El Paso-Austin-Houston interstate.  Many reasons.

-It's a straight shot through Austin without a co-sign. 
-It would relive any cross Texas/cross country I-10 traffic from dipping way south to San Antonio.
-It would effectively act as the I-35E and I-35W split being the 71/290 version being more of an I-10N and the existing I-10 from Columbus to Segovia being effectively I-10S
-It would be relatively less work for a greater impact.  Not only would the upgrades be minimum, especially through Austin and east of Austin, but it is a 220 mile corridor to upgrade to make an impact on a 2,500 mile corridor.  Just 220 miles to make a coast to coast interstate.
-Finally the El Paso-Austin-Houston corridor will be connected by interstate.