Austin: US 290 Oak Hill Y project

[Bobby5280]

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.

[Echostatic]

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:



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.



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



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.




And the 400' width of Oak Hill Parkway:

[Bobby5280]

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.

Yeah, 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.

[armadillo speedbump]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[kernals12]

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.

[thisdj78]

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.

[Bobby5280]

I 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.

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.

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.

[kernals12]

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.

[Echostatic]

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

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):


Intersection with Circle Drive, Fitzhugh Road, and Spring Valley Road:


Intersection with Nutty Brown Road and Oak Branch Drive:


Highway section through the Belterra Village shopping center:


Intersection with Belterra Drive and Heritage Oaks Drive:


Intersection with Sawyer Ranch Road and Polo Club Drive:


Intersection with Trautwein Road:


Intersection with Headwaters Boulevard and Hays Country Acres Road:


Intersection with Village Grove Parkway (end of frontage roads and last controlled access intersection):


Arterial section through Downtown Dripping Springs:

[MaxConcrete]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[armadillo speedbump]

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).

[Bobby5280]

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.

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.

I'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.

[kernals12]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[Echostatic]

Westbound US 290 & SH 71 Mainlanes — Bridge over William Cannon Drive, Williamson Creek, & Westbound Frontage Road



Eastbound Frontage Road — Retaining Walls and Sound Wall east of Convict Hill Road


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.

[Echostatic]

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.