AARoads Forum

Talk and study of a bypass has been ongoing for a long time. Yesterday the recommended alignment was revealed.
Presentation with all preliminary options and recommended route
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/aus/fredericksburg-relief-route/011420-displayboards.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/aus/fredericksburg-relief-route/011420-displayboards.pdf)

Recommended route
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/aus/fredericksburg-relief-route/011420-preferred-option.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/aus/fredericksburg-relief-route/011420-preferred-option.pdf)

Web site for yesterday's meeting (includes links above)
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/austin/011420.html (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/austin/011420.html)

I'm pleased to see the recommended alignment. It is a direct and efficient route, probably the best of all the options considered. This is the first time in a very long time that TxDOT has recommended the most direct and efficient route!

According to the main presentation, this is planned to be a limited-access facility. However, it would likely be constructed in phases. Construction is probably 5-10 years in the future, unless locals want it as soon as possible and TxDOT provides the funding.

That's good news that TX DOT is pretty far along in planning a potential freeway bypass of Fredericksburg. Hopefully they'll have something similar in the works at Johnson City off the East. Johnson City will probably need something more along the lines of a 3/4 loop to serve both US-281 and US-290 traffic. Ultimately the US-290 corridor from Austin out West to I-10 is going to get far more busy. Establishing Interstate quality bypasses is the first step to build out what could be a larger Interstate corridor.

Is this a contentious issue? I'm surprised to see this kind of wording for an open house.

(https://i.imgur.com/FgzIJRN.jpg)

It looks like it could eventually built to be a controlled-access highway with a 70 mph speed limit and frontage roads, in other words: a freeway.

I

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 15, 2020, 11:31:18 PM
That's good news that TX DOT is pretty far along in planning a potential freeway bypass of Fredericksburg. Hopefully they'll have something similar in the works at Johnson City off the East. Johnson City will probably need something more along the lines of a 3/4 loop to serve both US-281 and US-290 traffic. Ultimately the US-290 corridor from Austin out West to I-10 is going to get far more busy. Establishing Interstate quality bypasses is the first step to build out what could be a larger Interstate corridor.

I won't be surprised if it'll be a part of Corridor 38 aka Ports-to-Plains Corridor.

In addition to this proposed bypass, does the Texas DOT have any plans for other improvements to the US 290 corridor(such as additional bypasses, expansion from two-to-four-lanes), either in the Fredericksburg-to-Austin corridor, or the Interstate 10-to-Fredericksburg corridor?

In the Austin area there are plans to extend the US-290 freeway a couple miles farther West to just past the "Y" at Circle Drive. I don't know when they're supposed to start building the extension. Obviously it's going to be a longer term situation to build a freeway, toll road or some kind of interim solution out West to the US-281 corridor. But TX DOT definitely has to be planning something. Some of it would have to go on a new terrain path. I don't see US-290 getting upgraded on the existing alignment through Dripping Springs.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 16, 2020, 06:21:46 PM
In the Austin area there are plans to extend the US-290 freeway a couple miles farther West to just past the "Y" at Circle Drive. I don't know when they're supposed to start building the extension. Obviously it's going to be a longer term situation to build a freeway, toll road or some kind of interim solution out West to the US-281 corridor. But TX DOT definitely has to be planning something. Some of it would have to go on a new terrain path. I don't see US-290 getting upgraded on the existing alignment through Dripping Springs.

They were supposed to break ground this year.  We'll see about that.  I love this development.  Maybe the S-17/U.S. 290 Interstate I have been dreaming about for years might start becoming a reality.

Quote from: Stephane Dumas on January 16, 2020, 04:32:42 PM
I

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 15, 2020, 11:31:18 PM
That's good news that TX DOT is pretty far along in planning a potential freeway bypass of Fredericksburg. Hopefully they'll have something similar in the works at Johnson City off the East. Johnson City will probably need something more along the lines of a 3/4 loop to serve both US-281 and US-290 traffic. Ultimately the US-290 corridor from Austin out West to I-10 is going to get far more busy. Establishing Interstate quality bypasses is the first step to build out what could be a larger Interstate corridor.

I won't be surprised if it'll be a part of Corridor 38 aka Ports-to-Plains Corridor.

Doubtful; HPC #38's language is quite specific, notating a route from I-35 near Laredo up US 83 & 277 through Carrizo Springs, Del Rio, and San Angelo.  Having said this -- since TX interests have had quite a bit of success getting new HPC's inserted into both omnibus federal highway bills as well as yearly outlays, getting an E-W corridor on the books via US 290 from I-10 at 290's western end through Austin and thence east via either TX 71 or additional US 290 mileage might be the way to finally formalize the connector favored by many in this forum -- a "kissing cousin" to the HPC #84/I-14 concept to the north.  The trick is to find someone or some regional entity to push this forward from a simple concept to a legislatively binding -- perhaps an expanded version of the groups who have pushed the development of the Fredericksburg bypass.   

The only bypass really needed for Johnson City is a southwest side cutoff for 290.  Normally 281 flows fine through there, a 281 bypass would save only a single minute on average.

Money doesn't grow on trees, so limited funds would be better spent on much needed 4-laning of the remaining 2 and 3-lane gaps on 281 between 290 and Spring Branch.  There always seems to be a truck/texter/clueless lollygagger clogging the choke points at below the speed limit, and enough opposing traffic that it can be almost impossible to safely pass.  4-laning would save a lot more time. 

Edit:  Looks like about 17 miles of 2 and 3-lane left to upgrade in that section.

Quote from: armadillo speedbumpThe only bypass really needed for Johnson City is a southwest side cutoff for 290.  Normally 281 flows fine through there, a 281 bypass would save only a single minute on average.

US-281 is turning into an important alternative North-South relief corridor for I-35. As rapidly growing areas like Austin continue to squeeze I-35 that will put more long distance traffic and commercial trucking traffic on US-281 thru Central Texas. Over the long run it is not going to be acceptable at all for all that traffic to just go lumbering through the middle of Johnson City. That's why that town needs a whole lot more than just some cut-off to the South.

It's not going to be long before US-281 from San Antonio to the US-290 junction in Johnson City has to be upgraded to a limited access freeway. A little farther North US-281 is a back door to the cluster of small cities around Fort Hood. Some military traffic from Fort Hood takes US-281 to Wichita Falls (Sheppard AFB) and Lawton (Fort Sill) to avoid the DFW metroplex. I'm sure a growing number of truckers are likely making the same choice.

I get it that funding is limited. OTOH, Texas is a rapidly growing state. I saw one estimate saying the state was adding more than 1000 new residents every day. That's more taxpayers, but also a greater burden on the roads. Most of the new, migratory population is settling in or near big cities, such as the Austin & San Antonio region -which is home to some of the most rapidly growing cities in the US. The Northeast US has a pretty high concentration of freeways and toll roads. Texas doesn't. Yet a whole lot of people from the Northeast states, as well as people fleeing the insane costs of California, are winding up in Texas. The Lone Star state is even sucking people out of Oklahoma. We're losing school teachers right and left thanks to the $#!+ pay they make here.

Quote from: armadillo speedbump on January 21, 2020, 11:07:46 PM
The only bypass really needed for Johnson City is a southwest side cutoff for 290.  Normally 281 flows fine through there, a 281 bypass would save only a single minute on average.

Money doesn't grow on trees, so limited funds would be better spent on much needed 4-laning of the remaining 2 and 3-lane gaps on 281 between 290 and Spring Branch.  There always seems to be a truck/texter/clueless lollygagger clogging the choke points at below the speed limit, and enough opposing traffic that it can be almost impossible to safely pass.  4-laning would save a lot more time. 

Edit:  Looks like about 17 miles of 2 and 3-lane left to upgrade in that section.

Those 2 and 3-lane sections in Blanco County are a nightmare, especially the parts with intersecting RM/FM roads, no shoulders or turn lanes, and a 70 (75?) speed limit.

Any new developments?  I have been through Fredericksburg a lot lately and there are a lot of signs saying STOP THE BYPASS.  Seems local opposition is high.  For the life of me, I don't understand why people who live there want 18 wheelers squeezing through that quaint downtown area. 

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 03, 2020, 02:16:14 PM
Any new developments?  I have been through Fredericksburg a lot lately and there are a lot of signs saying STOP THE BYPASS.  Seems local opposition is high.  For the life of me, I don't understand why people who live there want 18 wheelers squeezing through that quaint downtown area. 

Simple small-town microeconomics.  Since the existing US 290 is right on the route of trucks to & from Austin and El Paso (as well as points beyond that), there's likely quite a bit of streetside business geared toward provisions for that traffic (restaurants, fuel, drug stores, convenience stores, etc.) that doesn't want (a) to see it go away or (b) have to move to the bypass -- if financially possible.  And with COVID19 invariably cutting into what business there is, there's probably at this point an air of desperation attached to that situation.  Stopping -- or at least delaying -- the bypass is probably seen as a step toward restoring some sense of normality.  And putting up with semis rolling down a street has likely already been internalized within the town.  Down the line, the chances are that some sort of US 290 bypass will be constructed -- but the most affected parties in town would prefer to see that particular can "kicked down the road" for as long as possible.

Quote from: sparker on June 03, 2020, 03:26:45 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 03, 2020, 02:16:14 PM
Any new developments?  I have been through Fredericksburg a lot lately and there are a lot of signs saying STOP THE BYPASS.  Seems local opposition is high.  For the life of me, I don't understand why people who live there want 18 wheelers squeezing through that quaint downtown area. 

Simple small-town microeconomics.  Since the existing US 290 is right on the route of trucks to & from Austin and El Paso (as well as points beyond that), there's likely quite a bit of streetside business geared toward provisions for that traffic (restaurants, fuel, drug stores, convenience stores, etc.) that doesn't want (a) to see it go away or (b) have to move to the bypass -- if financially possible.  And with COVID19 invariably cutting into what business there is, there's probably at this point an air of desperation attached to that situation.  Stopping -- or at least delaying -- the bypass is probably seen as a step toward restoring some sense of normality.  And putting up with semis rolling down a street has likely already been internalized within the town.  Down the line, the chances are that some sort of US 290 bypass will be constructed -- but the most affected parties in town would prefer to see that particular can "kicked down the road" for as long as possible.

I agree with everything you said.  I agree with that being the mentality of the minions.  That being said, what boggles my mind is the notion of bypassing a town killing a town.  I have always been a skeptic on the subject that a town bypass kills a town.  Pixar even made a movie about it!!  When the interstates were built and towns got bypasses or just had a freeway instead of a surface main street, yes, some towns became a shell of what they once were.  Some towns I think flourished.  I immediately think of Lordsburg, New Mexico and Van Horn, Texas.  It helps that they seem to be a navigational beacon for long-haul traffic, plus their remoteness plays a factor, but tell me another town of 2,500 in their respective states not on an interstate that has as many hotels and restaurants as they do.  It doesn't kill the town, it just shifts the industry a bit.  Sure those are now corporations now instead of local business, but locals get those jobs, so it averages out.  People that were going to stop when it was a 4 lane Main Street are still going to stop for a bite to eat or a hotel now that it's a freeway.  They still get tired or hungry at the same rate they always did. 

The only thing I disagreed with is in downtown Fredericksburg, there aren't any truck stops or anything catering to long distance drivers.  It's a bunch of trinket shops, antique stores and specialty scrapbook stores that I honestly don't know how they produce the revenue to pay their rent as it is.  I am also not a good judge of art.  There are local restaurants that will be bypassed, but the locals will still flock to them.   No one flocks to Fredericksburg from Austin to eat.   We have our own overpriced food here!

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 03, 2020, 04:29:50 PM

Quote from: sparker on June 03, 2020, 03:26:45 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 03, 2020, 02:16:14 PM
Any new developments?  I have been through Fredericksburg a lot lately and there are a lot of signs saying STOP THE BYPASS.  Seems local opposition is high.  For the life of me, I don't understand why people who live there want 18 wheelers squeezing through that quaint downtown area. 

Simple small-town microeconomics.  Since the existing US 290 is right on the route of trucks to & from Austin and El Paso (as well as points beyond that), there's likely quite a bit of streetside business geared toward provisions for that traffic (restaurants, fuel, drug stores, convenience stores, etc.) that doesn't want (a) to see it go away or (b) have to move to the bypass -- if financially possible.  And with COVID19 invariably cutting into what business there is, there's probably at this point an air of desperation attached to that situation.  Stopping -- or at least delaying -- the bypass is probably seen as a step toward restoring some sense of normality.  And putting up with semis rolling down a street has likely already been internalized within the town.  Down the line, the chances are that some sort of US 290 bypass will be constructed -- but the most affected parties in town would prefer to see that particular can "kicked down the road" for as long as possible.

I agree with everything you said.  I agree with that being the mentality of the minions.  That being said, what boggles my mind is the notion of bypassing a town killing a town.  I have always been a skeptic on the subject that a town bypass kills a town.  Pixar even made a movie about it!!  When the interstates were built and towns got bypasses or just had a freeway instead of a surface main street, yes, some towns became a shell of what they once were.  Some towns I think flourished.  I immediately think of Lordsburg, New Mexico and Van Horn, Texas.  It helps that they seem to be a navigational beacon for long-haul traffic, plus their remoteness plays a factor, but tell me another town of 2,500 in their respective states not on an interstate that has as many hotels and restaurants as they do.  It doesn't kill the town, it just shifts the industry a bit.  Sure those are now corporations now instead of local business, but locals get those jobs, so it averages out.  People that were going to stop when it was a 4 lane Main Street are still going to stop for a bite to eat or a hotel now that it's a freeway.  They still get tired or hungry at the same rate they always did. 

The only thing I disagreed with is in downtown Fredericksburg, there aren't any truck stops or anything catering to long distance drivers.  It's a bunch of trinket shops, antique stores and specialty scrapbook stores that I honestly don't know how they produce the revenue to pay their rent as it is.  I am also not a good judge of art.  There are local restaurants that will be bypassed, but the locals will still flock to them.   No one flocks to Fredericksburg from Austin to eat.   We have our own overpriced food here!

Let me rephrase this.  People don't drive from Austin to Fredericksburg just to eat.  People do drive from San Antonio and Austin to Fredericksburg to visit the shops and take in the local German culture and while there, they do get a bite to eat.  My point is, the people who drive there to take in that stuff will always come, bypass or not. 

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 03, 2020, 04:47:19 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 03, 2020, 04:29:50 PM

Quote from: sparker on June 03, 2020, 03:26:45 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 03, 2020, 02:16:14 PM
Any new developments?  I have been through Fredericksburg a lot lately and there are a lot of signs saying STOP THE BYPASS.  Seems local opposition is high.  For the life of me, I don't understand why people who live there want 18 wheelers squeezing through that quaint downtown area. 

Simple small-town microeconomics.  Since the existing US 290 is right on the route of trucks to & from Austin and El Paso (as well as points beyond that), there's likely quite a bit of streetside business geared toward provisions for that traffic (restaurants, fuel, drug stores, convenience stores, etc.) that doesn't want (a) to see it go away or (b) have to move to the bypass -- if financially possible.  And with COVID19 invariably cutting into what business there is, there's probably at this point an air of desperation attached to that situation.  Stopping -- or at least delaying -- the bypass is probably seen as a step toward restoring some sense of normality.  And putting up with semis rolling down a street has likely already been internalized within the town.  Down the line, the chances are that some sort of US 290 bypass will be constructed -- but the most affected parties in town would prefer to see that particular can "kicked down the road" for as long as possible.

I agree with everything you said.  I agree with that being the mentality of the minions.  That being said, what boggles my mind is the notion of bypassing a town killing a town.  I have always been a skeptic on the subject that a town bypass kills a town.  Pixar even made a movie about it!!  When the interstates were built and towns got bypasses or just had a freeway instead of a surface main street, yes, some towns became a shell of what they once were.  Some towns I think flourished.  I immediately think of Lordsburg, New Mexico and Van Horn, Texas.  It helps that they seem to be a navigational beacon for long-haul traffic, plus their remoteness plays a factor, but tell me another town of 2,500 in their respective states not on an interstate that has as many hotels and restaurants as they do.  It doesn't kill the town, it just shifts the industry a bit.  Sure those are now corporations now instead of local business, but locals get those jobs, so it averages out.  People that were going to stop when it was a 4 lane Main Street are still going to stop for a bite to eat or a hotel now that it's a freeway.  They still get tired or hungry at the same rate they always did. 

The only thing I disagreed with is in downtown Fredericksburg, there aren't any truck stops or anything catering to long distance drivers.  It's a bunch of trinket shops, antique stores and specialty scrapbook stores that I honestly don't know how they produce the revenue to pay their rent as it is.  I am also not a good judge of art.  There are local restaurants that will be bypassed, but the locals will still flock to them.   No one flocks to Fredericksburg from Austin to eat.   We have our own overpriced food here!

Let me rephrase this.  People don't drive from Austin to Fredericksburg just to eat.  People do drive from San Antonio and Austin to Fredericksburg to visit the shops and take in the local German culture and while there, they do get a bite to eat.  My point is, the people who drive there to take in that stuff will always come, bypass or not.

Exactly, and even with a freeway running near the town, people will still be visiting Downtown for everything it has to offer. I've been there before, it's a nice small town, and quite frankly would be more enjoyable not having semi after semi rolling through every minute.

It's mostly just automatic kneejerk NIMBYism. 

I guarantee you the public comments section will contain:  "We don't want to become another Austin!"  "Bullet train!"  "Jade Helm!"   50/50 on a "Make love, not roads!"

Quote from: armadillo speedbump on June 03, 2020, 07:08:55 PM
It's mostly just automatic kneejerk NIMBYism. 

I guarantee you the public comments section will contain:  "We don't want to become another Austin!"  "Bullet train!"  "Jade Helm!"   50/50 on a "Make love, not roads!"

"Make love, not roads!"?  I always though that was what Hippie Hollow was for!  (and, yes, I was there briefly circa 1970!)

Quote from: armadillo speedbump on June 03, 2020, 07:08:55 PM
It's mostly just automatic kneejerk NIMBYism. 

I guarantee you the public comments section will contain:  "We don't want to become another Austin!"  "Bullet train!"  "Jade Helm!"   50/50 on a "Make love, not roads!"

I understand that too.  Working in a profession where there are a lot of NIMBYs, I see it all the time and I can, believe it or not, empathize with them, to a degree.  I get that it's just the natural reaction, but if you educate yourself and actually stop looking at the four walls of your house and look at the bigger picture, the NIMBY narrow minded view is just dumb. 

Don't build a bypass.  Don't do something that could actually make our nice quaint town even nicer and quainter. 

Quote from: armadillo speedbump on June 03, 2020, 07:08:55 PM
It's mostly just automatic kneejerk NIMBYism. 

I guarantee you the public comments section will contain:  "We don't want to become another Austin!"  "Bullet train!"  "Jade Helm!"   50/50 on a "Make love, not roads!"

Small business is very precarious, so any change to the status quo will at least be viewed as suspicious.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 16, 2020, 06:21:46 PM
In the Austin area there are plans to extend the US-290 freeway a couple miles farther West to just past the "Y" at Circle Drive. I don't know when they're supposed to start building the extension. Obviously it's going to be a longer term situation to build a freeway, toll road or some kind of interim solution out West to the US-281 corridor. But TX DOT definitely has to be planning something. Some of it would have to go on a new terrain path. I don't see US-290 getting upgraded on the existing alignment through Dripping Springs.

it appears the buildings in the right of way have been vacated but are still standing.

It will be better for the town to get the traffic out of it.  The only reason I could see for being opposed is loss of tourism but I think most people know its there and will either stop or not stop.  I don't see the need for a freeway on either side of town.

Quote from: texaskdog on June 09, 2020, 09:23:46 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 16, 2020, 06:21:46 PM
In the Austin area there are plans to extend the US-290 freeway a couple miles farther West to just past the "Y" at Circle Drive. I don't know when they're supposed to start building the extension. Obviously it's going to be a longer term situation to build a freeway, toll road or some kind of interim solution out West to the US-281 corridor. But TX DOT definitely has to be planning something. Some of it would have to go on a new terrain path. I don't see US-290 getting upgraded on the existing alignment through Dripping Springs.

it appears the buildings in the right of way have been vacated but are still standing.

It will be better for the town to get the traffic out of it.  The only reason I could see for being opposed is loss of tourism but I think most people know its there and will either stop or not stop.  I don't see the need for a freeway on either side of town.

Driving from Dripping Springs every morning to my job at Mopac and 360, I would have to disagree with you. 

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 16, 2020, 06:21:46 PM
I don't see US-290 getting upgraded on the existing alignment through Dripping Springs.

Upgrading 290 through/around Dripping Springs is going to get ugly. I don't see a good alternative corridor without pushing through residential areas or basically routing it along Onion or Barton Creeks, which I'm sure will freak out the environmentalist NIMBYs, but you can't upgrade it through town without tearing down half of what was there before 2000.

If TxDOT had managed to do it before HEB and Lowe's went in, there would have been a nice, short bypass route a couple hundred yards south of the existing route to where a couple looops of old highway in the western part of town provided an obvious way to expand the existing ROW without much land takings.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 10, 2020, 10:44:26 AM

Quote from: texaskdog on June 09, 2020, 09:23:46 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 16, 2020, 06:21:46 PM
In the Austin area there are plans to extend the US-290 freeway a couple miles farther West to just past the "Y" at Circle Drive. I don't know when they're supposed to start building the extension. Obviously it's going to be a longer term situation to build a freeway, toll road or some kind of interim solution out West to the US-281 corridor. But TX DOT definitely has to be planning something. Some of it would have to go on a new terrain path. I don't see US-290 getting upgraded on the existing alignment through Dripping Springs.

it appears the buildings in the right of way have been vacated but are still standing.

It will be better for the town to get the traffic out of it.  The only reason I could see for being opposed is loss of tourism but I think most people know its there and will either stop or not stop.  I don't see the need for a freeway on either side of town.

Driving from Dripping Springs every morning to my job at Mopac and 360, I would have to disagree with you. 

My apologies....I meant I don't see a need for a freeway on either side of FREDERICKSBURG, that paragraph was about Fred. 

Quote from: djlynch on June 10, 2020, 10:15:18 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 16, 2020, 06:21:46 PM
I don't see US-290 getting upgraded on the existing alignment through Dripping Springs.

Upgrading 290 through/around Dripping Springs is going to get ugly. I don't see a good alternative corridor without pushing through residential areas or basically routing it along Onion or Barton Creeks, which I'm sure will freak out the environmentalist NIMBYs, but you can't upgrade it through town without tearing down half of what was there before 2000.

If TxDOT had managed to do it before HEB and Lowe's went in, there would have been a nice, short bypass route a couple hundred yards south of the existing route to where a couple looops of old highway in the western part of town provided an obvious way to expand the existing ROW without much land takings.

I was thinking if they started on the east side of Dripping and ran a highway on the north side of town and cross 281 and then hit current 290 just west of Johnson city that would be smartest

I think the key to pushing a new super highway on West past the proposed US-290 freeway extension to Circle Drive is bypassing Dripping Springs far enough to the North. One possible path is running along/near Fitzhugh Road. There is a significant utilities corridor running through there. And the area isn't all that packed in with high priced developments either.

I think the US-290 freeway could be extended along the existing highway to a point just East of the Fitzhugh Road intersection. Then the new terrain freeway could depart existing US-290 and take a more direct path toward Johnson City. It would also bypass Barton Creek to the North. One added advantage of a new terrain path: the super highway could be built with up to date curve geometry. A superhighway built along (or elevated above) the existing US-290 path would not be able to have curves as mild and graceful.

Quote from: texasdogMy apologies....I meant I don't see a need for a freeway on either side of FREDERICKSBURG, that paragraph was about Fred.

I think Austin needs an Interstate class freeway going West out of town to meet I-10 past Fredericksburg. The town of Fredericksburg would be connected to that corridor simply by being along the path.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 11, 2020, 01:57:53 PM
I think the key to pushing a new super highway on West past the proposed US-290 freeway extension to Circle Drive is bypassing Dripping Springs far enough to the North. One possible path is running along/near Fitzhugh Road. There is a significant utilities corridor running through there. And the area isn't all that packed in with high priced developments either.

I think the US-290 freeway could be extended along the existing highway to a point just East of the Fitzhugh Road intersection. Then the new terrain freeway could depart existing US-290 and take a more direct path toward Johnson City. It would also bypass Barton Creek to the North. One added advantage of a new terrain path: the super highway could be build with up to date curve geometry. A superhighway built along (or elevated above) the existing US-290 path would not be able to have curves as mild and graceful.

Quote from: texasdogMy apologies....I meant I don't see a need for a freeway on either side of FREDERICKSBURG, that paragraph was about Fred.

I think Austin needs an Interstate class freeway going West out of town to meet I-10 past Fredericksburg. The town of Fredericksburg would be connected to that corridor simply by being along the path.

I love interestates almost as much as Fritzowl but we drive out there frequently and generally even a two lane road suffices just fine west of Fred.  There's just not much traffic on it.  It would help funnel through traffic out of SA but then bringing them into south Austin is not a good answer either.

Quote from: texaskdog on June 11, 2020, 04:46:43 PM
I love interestates almost as much as Fritzowl but we drive out there frequently and generally even a two lane road suffices just fine west of Fred.  There's just not much traffic on it.  It would help funnel through traffic out of SA but then bringing them into south Austin is not a good answer either.

This is definitely true West of Fredericksburg, but I think South Austin can handle the additional through traffic. Ben White is rarely congested between where the freeway ends before William Cannon Dr. in the West and US 183 in the East, the section with the highest volume of traffic. The chokepoints are where the freeway ends, and offramps onto Mopac and I-35. Through traffic would be less significant. The Oak Hill Parkway westward extension of the freeway should also help with this.

Quote from: Echostatic on June 12, 2020, 09:06:39 AM

Quote from: texaskdog on June 11, 2020, 04:46:43 PM
I love interestates almost as much as Fritzowl but we drive out there frequently and generally even a two lane road suffices just fine west of Fred.  There's just not much traffic on it.  It would help funnel through traffic out of SA but then bringing them into south Austin is not a good answer either.

This is definitely true West of Fredericksburg, but I think South Austin can handle the additional through traffic. Ben White is rarely congested between where the freeway ends before William Cannon Dr. in the West and US 183 in the East, the section with the highest volume of traffic. The chokepoints are where the freeway ends, and offramps onto Mopac and I-35. Through traffic would be less significant. The Oak Hill Parkway westward extension of the freeway should also help with this.

Yes, it's what I have been saying to push for this interstate.  I agree completely that between Harper and the I 10 US 290 intersection (the two lane section) there are very few cars:

That said, the point to this whole thing is giving a mainline connection to points west on the corridor.  Like all roads, once upgraded it will see more use.  Remember, it would pull about half the traffic that stays on I-10 through San Antonio pushing further east (trucks, people on looooog road trips).  I look at this the same as I-35W and I-35 E.  They basically take half the mainline traffic on each leg.  Right now, US 290 from I 10 to Harper only handles local traffic, not much long haul traffic.  No one on a long road trip or truckers want to take the two/four laned, non separated, non controlled US 290 even though its 20 miles shorter for through traffic because it hard on long drives to deal with that crap.  They would all opt to stay on the freeway through San Antonio.  Austin can handle the added traffic it would bring for those bypassing San Antonio.  Yes Ben White has a lot of cars, but it keeps flowing, and adding truck traffic to it won't add so much traffic that it will be completely gridlocked, not with a continuous freeway, instead of one that ends east and west like it currently does.  Again, I am looking bigger at this thing.  I am thinking connect Austin to El Paso, Phoenix and Los Angeles, not Austin to Harper.  I am also thinking about connecting Austin to Houston, New Orleans and Jacksonville, not just to Houston or Columbus.  I honestly can't say that every interstate corridor that was built during the original plan was in need of a full freeway.  You could argue that the section of I 10 from Fort Stockton to Kent, or that the section from Kerrville to Mountain Home (because it was a new alignment) was really in need of a full freeway at the time it was built.  The point wasn't that isolated corridor, the point was El Paso to San Antonio, or even bigger, there needed to be a southern freeway in the system and that's where it landed.

You can't look at this thing in isolated snapshots.  You have to look big picture.  That's why upgrading SH 71 east of Austin makes more sense than upgrading US 290.  290 would be very isolated, and would only serve the two points (Houston and Austin).  SH 71 puts Austin on the main grid and has a convenient outlet westward.  Basically, by building about 200 miles of Interstate (between I 10 and US 290 to Columbus) where roughly 50 miles are already freeway (adding the Austin section and all the bypasses) you have essentially built a 2,500 mile interstate, utilizing I 10.  Upgrading US 290 alone from Austin to Houston gets you an interstate between Austin and Houston. 

The existing highway vs what it would be as a freeway argument has it's limitations.  Its a good first step yes, but it's not completely applicable.  Take SH 130 for example.  It was built on a completely new alignment and a completely new road, not upgrading an existing road.  If you look at the traffic that predated it's existence, then you would say before it was a vacant field and there was 0.00 cars driving on it daily.  That doesn't warrant a freeway.  A one lane unpaved county road would do just fine, but here it is now congested and already going through the process of adding lanes. 

Quote from: texasdogI love interestates almost as much as Fritzowl but we drive out there frequently and generally even a two lane road suffices just fine west of Fred.  There's just not much traffic on it.  It would help funnel through traffic out of SA but then bringing them into south Austin is not a good answer either.

This is not a frivolous Interstate concept. The Austin metro has 2 million residents and nearly 1 million within the city limits itself. I think that's more than enough to warrant Interstate-class East-West service in the highway network. A bunch of cities far smaller than Austin are far better connected to the Interstate system.

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. Lots of motorists, including truckers, will drive considerably out of their way just to stay on an Interstate. An added factor: there's no businesses or services where US-290 merges with I-10. It's possible a decent amount of traffic going West out of Austin to I-10 ends up taking TX-16 SW from Fredericksburg to meet I-10 in Kerrville.

Quote from: Echostatic on June 12, 2020, 09:06:39 AM

Quote from: texaskdog on June 11, 2020, 04:46:43 PM
I love interestates almost as much as Fritzowl but we drive out there frequently and generally even a two lane road suffices just fine west of Fred.  There's just not much traffic on it.  It would help funnel through traffic out of SA but then bringing them into south Austin is not a good answer either.

This is definitely true West of Fredericksburg, but I think South Austin can handle the additional through traffic. Ben White is rarely congested between where the freeway ends before William Cannon Dr. in the West and US 183 in the East, the section with the highest volume of traffic. The chokepoints are where the freeway ends, and offramps onto Mopac and I-35. Through traffic would be less significant. The Oak Hill Parkway westward extension of the freeway should also help with this.

I used to think that until I moved to South Austin and commuted.   With Uber I often drop passengers off around 5 pm and 71 is a bottleneck all the way past I-35 to 1st, and EB 290/71 to SB 35 is a nightmare.    Usually I take McKinney Falls Pkwy to Slaughter to avoid 71.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 15, 2020, 04:44:29 PM
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.

I-10 between Houston and Junction is 308 miles.
US-290 between Houston and Junction is 299 miles.
Taking I-10 adds a mere 9 miles and is not an out of the way routing.

I-10 is gradually being expanded to 6 lanes between Houston and San Antonio, with current working stretching from Houston out to US-77 at Schulenburg, and from San Antonio to Loop 1604.
I-10 is also gradually being expanded to 6/8 lanes between San Antonio and Boerne, including HOV facilities.
Loop 1604 is set to undergo a massive project to expand the northern loop from 4 lanes to 10 lanes, including HOV facilities.

With ongoing expansion projects throughout the whole corridor, I-10 will continue to reliably carry through traffic with Loop 1604 acting as an effective 70 mph routing around San Antonio.

I'm not against a western or eastern outlet from Austin, but I don't think it would do much in the way of diverting traffic off of I-10.

When it comes to commercial traffic, the sections of US 290 (and TX 71 as regards the eastern portion) west and east of Austin and the I-35 corridor are best addressed as having separate value.  Most commercial traffic to and from a specific point -- in this case, Austin -- originates at regional distribution centers.  In central/east TX, those are effectively the three points of the "Triangle": DFW, San Antonio, and Houston.  I-35 handles the first two; the longstanding argument regarding the lack of an Interstate-grade connection directly from Austin to Houston is predicated upon the latter's role as a major distribution point.  Arguably those concerns are valid -- but much less so for the portion of US 290 through Fredericksburg to I-10.  Of course, there will be long-distance trucks bringing cargo from the West Coast or even AZ points -- but those would be the exception.  The first place west of Austin likely to host any significant warehousing or distribution would be greater El Paso -- but that location is almost 600 miles away from Austin -- not the most efficient use of fuel and man-hours.   Goods will come in from Triangle points; not much outside that perimeter, at least presently, has the wherewithal to function as a major goods supplier to Austin.  Perhaps down the line if and when the I-14 and I-27 corridors are in service M/O and San Angelo may "join the party", but for now, lines of commercial activity regarding Austin will likely remain in and around the "Triangle".  Of course, there will be exceptions to that observation; Austin as a "tech mecca" will always draw very specific shipments of items from all places, including the West Coast.  For the time being, those will continue to slog down US 290 -- but it's not like there will be several such shipments per day; massive convoys of goods and equipment won't be clogging Fredericksburg streets day and night. 

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 03, 2020, 04:29:50 PM

Quote from: sparker on June 03, 2020, 03:26:45 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 03, 2020, 02:16:14 PM
Any new developments?  I have been through Fredericksburg a lot lately and there are a lot of signs saying STOP THE BYPASS.  Seems local opposition is high.  For the life of me, I don't understand why people who live there want 18 wheelers squeezing through that quaint downtown area. 

Simple small-town microeconomics.  Since the existing US 290 is right on the route of trucks to & from Austin and El Paso (as well as points beyond that), there's likely quite a bit of streetside business geared toward provisions for that traffic (restaurants, fuel, drug stores, convenience stores, etc.) that doesn't want (a) to see it go away or (b) have to move to the bypass -- if financially possible.  And with COVID19 invariably cutting into what business there is, there's probably at this point an air of desperation attached to that situation.  Stopping -- or at least delaying -- the bypass is probably seen as a step toward restoring some sense of normality.  And putting up with semis rolling down a street has likely already been internalized within the town.  Down the line, the chances are that some sort of US 290 bypass will be constructed -- but the most affected parties in town would prefer to see that particular can "kicked down the road" for as long as possible.

I agree with everything you said.  I agree with that being the mentality of the minions.  That being said, what boggles my mind is the notion of bypassing a town killing a town.  I have always been a skeptic on the subject that a town bypass kills a town.  Pixar even made a movie about it!!  When the interstates were built and towns got bypasses or just had a freeway instead of a surface main street, yes, some towns became a shell of what they once were.  Some towns I think flourished.  I immediately think of Lordsburg, New Mexico and Van Horn, Texas.  It helps that they seem to be a navigational beacon for long-haul traffic, plus their remoteness plays a factor, but tell me another town of 2,500 in their respective states not on an interstate that has as many hotels and restaurants as they do.  It doesn't kill the town, it just shifts the industry a bit.  Sure those are now corporations now instead of local business, but locals get those jobs, so it averages out.  People that were going to stop when it was a 4 lane Main Street are still going to stop for a bite to eat or a hotel now that it's a freeway.  They still get tired or hungry at the same rate they always did. 

The only thing I disagreed with is in downtown Fredericksburg, there aren't any truck stops or anything catering to long distance drivers.  It's a bunch of trinket shops, antique stores and specialty scrapbook stores that I honestly don't know how they produce the revenue to pay their rent as it is.  I am also not a good judge of art.  There are local restaurants that will be bypassed, but the locals will still flock to them.   No one flocks to Fredericksburg from Austin to eat.   We have our own overpriced food here!

It's a destination.  If they got some of the traffic out of downtown that is not stopping anyway it'll make the streets safer.

Quote from: texaskdog on June 16, 2020, 08:29:14 AM
It's a destination.  If they got some of the traffic out of downtown that is not stopping anyway it'll make the streets safer.

Agreed, I'd say the biggest concern is the amount of truck traffic barreling down Main St. It'd be nice to route that traffic plus through car traffic away from the core and open it up some.

While I question the need to build US-290 out to full interstate standards, particularly west of Johnson City, a freeway-grade bypass of the city is warranted.

Main Street in Johnson City is a 2-lane bottle neck for several blocks West of the US-281 intersection. It's not a fit path for heavy trucks. And that semi traffic does more than just pound those local streets. It can be pretty good at pulverizing water lines and other utilities over time.

If the town fathers of Johnson City know how to market their town and its attractions correctly it won't be killed by one or more freeway quality bypasses. The US-290 bypass is definitely necessary. I think an Eastern bypass for US-281 is going to be in the cards as well.

Quote from: sprjus4I'm not against a western or eastern outlet from Austin, but I don't think it would do much in the way of diverting traffic off of I-10.

An upgraded US-290 corridor from Houston through Austin probably wouldn't pull many trucks coming from Louisiana and headed to El Paso off of I-10. But it would grab up a lot of traffic originating from the Northern reaches of Houston headed out West that way. Going through Austin would be easier for that traffic. Austin is a major destination in its own right. While heavy trucks might stick to I-10 a fair amount of passenger cars, SUVs, etc might choose to go through Austin instead for attractions there. With metro Austin being heavily populated and featuring a number of major businesses that makes it a serious originator of traffic.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 16, 2020, 04:06:09 PM
Main Street in Johnson City is a 2-lane bottle neck for several blocks West of the US-281 intersection. It's not a fit path for heavy trucks. And that semi traffic does more than just pound those local streets. It can be pretty good at pulverizing water lines and other utilities over time.

If the town fathers of Johnson City know how to market their town and its attractions correctly it won't be killed by one or more freeway quality bypasses. The US-290 bypass is definitely necessary. I think an Eastern bypass for US-281 is going to be in the cards as well.

Quote from: sprjus4I'm not against a western or eastern outlet from Austin, but I don't think it would do much in the way of diverting traffic off of I-10.

An upgraded US-290 corridor from Houston through Austin probably wouldn't pull many trucks coming from Louisiana and headed to El Paso off of I-10. But it would grab up a lot of traffic originating from the Northern reaches of Houston headed out West that way. Going through Austin would be easier for that traffic. Austin is a major destination in its own right. While heavy trucks might stick to I-10 a fair amount of passenger cars, SUVs, etc might choose to go through Austin instead for attractions there. With metro Austin being heavily populated and featuring a number of major businesses that makes it a serious originator of traffic.

Which is why the Houston-Austin portion of any E-W corridor through metro Austin could be justified.  Saving a few miles on a cross-country trip is probably not sufficient cause to justify an Interstate upgrade of US 290 west of Austin.  But new corridors have been commissioned on thinner grounds than that -- particularly within this particular state -- so it's just as likely than if a corridor is seriously/officially considered along US 290 and/or TX 71, it'll address both east and west egress to Austin.  Now -- whether any ensuing study concludes that the western portion is warranted (I'd think Austin-Houston would be the closest thing to a "slam dunk" within TX since Houston-Texarkana on I-69/369, provided a decent effort to get it designated were to occur) remains to be seen. 

Quote from: sparker on June 16, 2020, 04:20:43 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 16, 2020, 04:06:09 PM
Main Street in Johnson City is a 2-lane bottle neck for several blocks West of the US-281 intersection. It's not a fit path for heavy trucks. And that semi traffic does more than just pound those local streets. It can be pretty good at pulverizing water lines and other utilities over time.

If the town fathers of Johnson City know how to market their town and its attractions correctly it won't be killed by one or more freeway quality bypasses. The US-290 bypass is definitely necessary. I think an Eastern bypass for US-281 is going to be in the cards as well.

Quote from: sprjus4I'm not against a western or eastern outlet from Austin, but I don't think it would do much in the way of diverting traffic off of I-10.

An upgraded US-290 corridor from Houston through Austin probably wouldn't pull many trucks coming from Louisiana and headed to El Paso off of I-10. But it would grab up a lot of traffic originating from the Northern reaches of Houston headed out West that way. Going through Austin would be easier for that traffic. Austin is a major destination in its own right. While heavy trucks might stick to I-10 a fair amount of passenger cars, SUVs, etc might choose to go through Austin instead for attractions there. With metro Austin being heavily populated and featuring a number of major businesses that makes it a serious originator of traffic.

Which is why the Houston-Austin portion of any E-W corridor through metro Austin could be justified.  Saving a few miles on a cross-country trip is probably not sufficient cause to justify an Interstate upgrade of US 290 west of Austin.  But new corridors have been commissioned on thinner grounds than that -- particularly within this particular state -- so it's just as likely than if a corridor is seriously/officially considered along US 290 and/or TX 71, it'll address both east and west egress to Austin.  Now -- whether any ensuing study concludes that the western portion is warranted (I'd think Austin-Houston would be the closest thing to a "slam dunk" within TX since Houston-Texarkana on I-69/369, provided a decent effort to get it designated were to occur) remains to be seen.

The main reason I keep pushing for the US 290 extension west of Austin and the use of SH 71 east of Austin to make one interstate that's a bypass of I-10 a la I-12 is simply because how does anything get passed in this country?  Simply is has to be attached to a bigger and more favorable plan.  That's how unfavorable bills get passed, they are attached to ones no one can vote no on.  want to build a nuclear power plant?  Attach it to the "definitely don't shoot the starving children" bill and it will definitely pass.

Yes, the main thing I want is a interstate between Houston and Austin, but that alone is not a complete sell.  You got to "glam it up" by adding the angel of it being a relief route to I-10 and will be a connection to the overall routing of I-10 for Austin.  Upgrading US 290 between Houston and Austin doesn't help the selling point that there are more things to this plan than simply I want an interstate between point A and point B.  Upgrading that corridor kinda blocks it in.

Lastly the quote that I-10 from Houston to Junction is only 9 miles longer, that's not taking in the fact that US 290 is not a direct route over the same distance.  It has north-south concurrencies that eat up a lot of mileage and a lot of meandering.  A more direct routing will be far shorter, not to mention a freeway.   They won't build the new freeway through downtown Giddings, Johnson City and Fredericksburg. 

I-12 is a mere 22 miles shorter than I-10 from Baton Rouge to Slidell, yet the interstate was built and heavily traveled.   

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 16, 2020, 08:34:04 AM

Quote from: texaskdog on June 16, 2020, 08:29:14 AM
It's a destination.  If they got some of the traffic out of downtown that is not stopping anyway it'll make the streets safer.

Agreed, I'd say the biggest concern is the amount of truck traffic barreling down Main St. It'd be nice to route that traffic plus through car traffic away from the core and open it up some.

While I question the need to build US-290 out to full interstate standards, particularly west of Johnson City, a freeway-grade bypass of the city is warranted.

you could cut a lane each direction and have some nice grass and benches

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 30, 2020, 07:05:08 PM

Quote from: sparker on June 16, 2020, 04:20:43 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 16, 2020, 04:06:09 PM
Main Street in Johnson City is a 2-lane bottle neck for several blocks West of the US-281 intersection. It's not a fit path for heavy trucks. And that semi traffic does more than just pound those local streets. It can be pretty good at pulverizing water lines and other utilities over time.

If the town fathers of Johnson City know how to market their town and its attractions correctly it won't be killed by one or more freeway quality bypasses. The US-290 bypass is definitely necessary. I think an Eastern bypass for US-281 is going to be in the cards as well.

Quote from: sprjus4I'm not against a western or eastern outlet from Austin, but I don't think it would do much in the way of diverting traffic off of I-10.

An upgraded US-290 corridor from Houston through Austin probably wouldn't pull many trucks coming from Louisiana and headed to El Paso off of I-10. But it would grab up a lot of traffic originating from the Northern reaches of Houston headed out West that way. Going through Austin would be easier for that traffic. Austin is a major destination in its own right. While heavy trucks might stick to I-10 a fair amount of passenger cars, SUVs, etc might choose to go through Austin instead for attractions there. With metro Austin being heavily populated and featuring a number of major businesses that makes it a serious originator of traffic.

Which is why the Houston-Austin portion of any E-W corridor through metro Austin could be justified.  Saving a few miles on a cross-country trip is probably not sufficient cause to justify an Interstate upgrade of US 290 west of Austin.  But new corridors have been commissioned on thinner grounds than that -- particularly within this particular state -- so it's just as likely than if a corridor is seriously/officially considered along US 290 and/or TX 71, it'll address both east and west egress to Austin.  Now -- whether any ensuing study concludes that the western portion is warranted (I'd think Austin-Houston would be the closest thing to a "slam dunk" within TX since Houston-Texarkana on I-69/369, provided a decent effort to get it designated were to occur) remains to be seen.

The main reason I keep pushing for the US 290 extension west of Austin and the use of SH 71 east of Austin to make one interstate that's a bypass of I-10 a la I-12 is simply because how does anything get passed in this country?  Simply is has to be attached to a bigger and more favorable plan.  That's how unfavorable bills get passed, they are attached to ones no one can vote no on.  want to build a nuclear power plant?  Attach it to the "definitely don't shoot the starving children" bill and it will definitely pass.

Yes, the main thing I want is a interstate between Houston and Austin, but that alone is not a complete sell.  You got to "glam it up" by adding the angel of it being a relief route to I-10 and will be a connection to the overall routing of I-10 for Austin.  Upgrading US 290 between Houston and Austin doesn't help the selling point that there are more things to this plan than simply I want an interstate between point A and point B.  Upgrading that corridor kinda blocks it in.

Lastly the quote that I-10 from Houston to Junction is only 9 miles longer, that's not taking in the fact that US 290 is not a direct route over the same distance.  It has north-south concurrencies that eat up a lot of mileage and a lot of meandering.  A more direct routing will be far shorter, not to mention a freeway.   They won't build the new freeway through downtown Giddings, Johnson City and Fredericksburg. 

I-12 is a mere 22 miles shorter than I-10 from Baton Rouge to Slidell, yet the interstate was built and heavily traveled.   

even before a buyin, a dripping spring bypass, Fredericksburg bypass, and shorten 290 by bypassing Johnson city to the south and build it across toward dripping springs

I have been trying to explain the reasoning I don't like the US 290 corridor from Houston to Austin to be upgraded to interstate status over the SH-71 route, but I think this is my best example:

Take all the interstate bypasses in the county:

I-275 going through Tampa and St. Petersburg while I-75 skirts Tampa
I-376 and I-279 going into Pittsburgh while their parents avoid the city
I-12 skipping New Orleans while I-10 goes through New Orleans
I-215 going through San Bernardino while I-15 goes further east
Both sets of I-35E and I-35Ws
Sr-85 to I-8 (Phoenix Bypass Future I-11)

What do they all have in common?

The split from the mainline in both directions happen in rural areas, smaller towns and areas that were rural at the time of the construction of the interstate.  they happen in rural areas for a reason.  It keeps confusion and information overload very low when approaching a set of dual freeways that eventually go to the same long-range destination but you have to make a choice because one is shorter than the other.  I'll even throw in I-405 as honorable mention in Los Angeles due to the south terminus being more rural when the highway was constructed.   

Splitting I-10 for a relief rout going through Austin for San Antonio by using US 290 between Houston and Austin is a horrible idea.  Traveling westbound you would exit I-10 to get on to northbound I-610 (that section being one of the busiest freeways in Texas) to then get to the Interstate that is to usurp US 290.  That's a lot of weaving and lane changing to get to the shorter route, not to mention the sign overload of explanation how this is a San Antonio relief route.  There is a reason such splits occur in rural areas.  They give the driver ample warning and lots of wide open space to make a choice on which route to take to get to the same destination (ie I am in Houston and I am going to El Paso...I have a choice, stay on I-10 or take I-AUS (the Austin version).  The I-AUS way is shorter and quicker and I don't have to go through San Antonio to make it to El Paso, because both routes take me there)  I would much rather make that choice when I have miles of no intersections and time to watch the signs telling me so, not when I just went through exit after exit in downtown Houston and now I have to make two exists off busy urban interstates to get to my relief route.  That doesn't sound like much relief to me.  Sounds more like a nightmare.  Rememerb to cater to the drivers out there that aren't road geeks.  The drivers that know the interstate shield means a faster road, yes, but need some help to get them the even faster route.  We don't need these people making split second decisions just outside of the downtown area of the 4th largest city in the United States.

I will say again, I am all aboard making both SH-71 and US-290 between Houston and Austin interstates, but I think the SH-71 should take mush higher precedent because of it's greater east to east-west traffic. Again, look at the whole picture, not just Houston to Austin corridor.  The greater picture shows how important the SH-71 version can be. 

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 01, 2020, 04:38:57 PM
I have been trying to explain the reasoning I don't like the US 290 corridor from Houston to Austin to be upgraded to interstate status over the SH-71 route, but I think this is my best example:

Take all the interstate bypasses in the county:

I-275 going through Tampa and St. Petersburg while I-75 skirts Tampa
I-376 and I-279 going into Pittsburgh while their parents avoid the city
I-12 skipping New Orleans while I-10 goes through New Orleans
I-215 going through San Bernardino while I-15 goes further east
Both sets of I-35E and I-35Ws
Sr-85 to I-8 (Phoenix Bypass Future I-11)

What do they all have in common?

The split from the mainline in both directions happen in rural areas, smaller towns and areas that were rural at the time of the construction of the interstate.  they happen in rural areas for a reason.  It keeps confusion and information overload very low when approaching a set of dual freeways that eventually go to the same long-range destination but you have to make a choice because one is shorter than the other.  I'll even throw in I-405 as honorable mention in Los Angeles due to the south terminus being more rural when the highway was constructed.

I-57 bypasses St. Louis while I-55 goes through St. Louis. I-55 runs to Downtown Chicago, meanwhile to reach I-57 you have to travel south on I-94 / I-90 to reach it, still well within the urban Chicago area.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 01, 2020, 04:38:57 PM
Splitting I-10 for a relief rout going through Austin for San Antonio by using US 290 between Houston and Austin is a horrible idea.  Traveling westbound you would exit I-10 to get on to northbound I-610 (that section being one of the busiest freeways in Texas) to then get to the Interstate that is to usurp US 290.  That's a lot of weaving and lane changing to get to the shorter route, not to mention the sign overload of explanation how this is a San Antonio relief route.

That interchange was recently reconstructed, and there are dedicated ramps from I-10 directly to US-290 and vice versa that do not touch I-610 or have any major weaving. Separated ramps for I-610 and roadways for I-610 thru traffic also exist separate from the I-10 to US-290 ramps.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 01, 2020, 04:38:57 PM
There is a reason such splits occur in rural areas.  They give the driver ample warning and lots of wide open space to make a choice on which route to take to get to the same destination (ie I am in Houston and I am going to El Paso...I have a choice, stay on I-10 or take I-AUS (the Austin version).  The I-AUS way is shorter and quicker and I don't have to go through San Antonio to make it to El Paso, because both routes take me there)

Major differences between the commonly referenced I-12 and I-10 example.

I-12 is almost 25 miles shorter than I-10 through New Orleans over an 85 mile distance.
I-12 does not pass through any urban areas meanwhile I-10 does.

A US-290 / SH-71 relief route would only be 10 miles shorter over a 300 mile distance.
A US-290 / SH-71 relief route would pass through urban Austin, which makes the "relief" aspect moot.

Both routes would be competitive for thru traffic, it's only a matter of would you rather go through Austin or San Antonio. The Austin routing goes relatively directly through the urban area with little bypass options, whereas San Antonio has an adequate outer loop once expanded to 10 lanes (4 GP + 1 HOV lane each way) before 2030, and is posted at 70 mph throughout, along with I-10 directly through as different options.

I'm not against upgrading either US-290 or SH-71 east of Austin, and US-290 west of Austin, but it's important to realize ultimately the route would mostly benefit Austin traffic heading east or west rather than thru traffic. Thru traffic would not see much if any relief via a northern corridor, would not save significant mileage or time, and would not have a rural route throughout. It would however provide redundancy which is good to have in the event of any major incidents that may shut down either route.

First, I'd like to see I-10 expanded to 6 lanes between Houston and San Antonio, which is largely underway in many areas. Second, relief routes around towns along the US-290 corridor west of Austin, with 4-lane divided highway widening where necessary. Third, upgrade either US-290 to SH-71 to interstate standards east of Austin. Lastly, upgrade the remaining portions of US-290 west of Austin to interstate standards.

^^^^^^^^^
In LA, I-12 is, plain and simple, a bypass route for I-10 traffic to bypass New Orleans.  And I'll reiterate something I mentioned in another thread:  given the proclivity for split/suffixed routings in the original Interstate scheme, I'm surprised, given its purpose, that the I-10 alignment wasn't just split into I-10S through New Orleans and I-10N as the bypass along US 190 and the north Lake Ponchartrain shore.  Of course, that would have become I-12 or another number in the teens by 1980 when they 86'ed (no pun intended re old I-15W) most of the suffixes.   

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2020, 05:18:09 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 01, 2020, 04:38:57 PM
I have been trying to explain the reasoning I don't like the US 290 corridor from Houston to Austin to be upgraded to interstate status over the SH-71 route, but I think this is my best example:

Take all the interstate bypasses in the county:

I-275 going through Tampa and St. Petersburg while I-75 skirts Tampa
I-376 and I-279 going into Pittsburgh while their parents avoid the city
I-12 skipping New Orleans while I-10 goes through New Orleans
I-215 going through San Bernardino while I-15 goes further east
Both sets of I-35E and I-35Ws
Sr-85 to I-8 (Phoenix Bypass Future I-11)

What do they all have in common?

The split from the mainline in both directions happen in rural areas, smaller towns and areas that were rural at the time of the construction of the interstate.  they happen in rural areas for a reason.  It keeps confusion and information overload very low when approaching a set of dual freeways that eventually go to the same long-range destination but you have to make a choice because one is shorter than the other.  I'll even throw in I-405 as honorable mention in Los Angeles due to the south terminus being more rural when the highway was constructed.

I-57 bypasses St. Louis while I-55 goes through St. Louis. I-55 runs to Downtown Chicago, meanwhile to reach I-57 you have to travel south on I-94 / I-90 to reach it, still well within the urban Chicago area.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 01, 2020, 04:38:57 PM
Splitting I-10 for a relief rout going through Austin for San Antonio by using US 290 between Houston and Austin is a horrible idea.  Traveling westbound you would exit I-10 to get on to northbound I-610 (that section being one of the busiest freeways in Texas) to then get to the Interstate that is to usurp US 290.  That's a lot of weaving and lane changing to get to the shorter route, not to mention the sign overload of explanation how this is a San Antonio relief route.

That interchange was recently reconstructed, and there are dedicated ramps from I-10 directly to US-290 and vice versa that do not touch I-610 or have any major weaving. Separated ramps for I-610 and roadways for I-610 thru traffic also exist separate from the I-10 to US-290 ramps.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 01, 2020, 04:38:57 PM
There is a reason such splits occur in rural areas.  They give the driver ample warning and lots of wide open space to make a choice on which route to take to get to the same destination (ie I am in Houston and I am going to El Paso...I have a choice, stay on I-10 or take I-AUS (the Austin version).  The I-AUS way is shorter and quicker and I don't have to go through San Antonio to make it to El Paso, because both routes take me there)

Major differences between the commonly referenced I-12 and I-10 example.

I-12 is almost 25 miles shorter than I-10 through New Orleans over an 85 mile distance.
I-12 does not pass through any urban areas meanwhile I-10 does.

A US-290 / SH-71 relief route would only be 10 miles shorter over a 300 mile distance.
A US-290 / SH-71 relief route would pass through urban Austin, which makes the "relief" aspect moot.

Both routes would be competitive for thru traffic, it's only a matter of would you rather go through Austin or San Antonio. The Austin routing goes relatively directly through the urban area with little bypass options, whereas San Antonio has an adequate outer loop once expanded to 10 lanes (4 GP + 1 HOV lane each way) before 2030, and is posted at 70 mph throughout, along with I-10 directly through as different options.

I'm not against upgrading either US-290 or SH-71 east of Austin, and US-290 west of Austin, but it's important to realize ultimately the route would mostly benefit Austin traffic heading east or west rather than thru traffic. Thru traffic would not see much if any relief via a northern corridor, would not save significant mileage or time, and would not have a rural route throughout. It would however provide redundancy which is good to have in the event of any major incidents that may shut down either route.

First, I'd like to see I-10 expanded to 6 lanes between Houston and San Antonio, which is largely underway in many areas. Second, relief routes around towns along the US-290 corridor west of Austin, with 4-lane divided highway widening where necessary. Third, upgrade either US-290 to SH-71 to interstate standards east of Austin. Lastly, upgrade the remaining portions of US-290 west of Austin to interstate standards.

I am very aware of the newly constructed intersection and direct I-10 to US 290 ramps having driven I multiple times.  It is still very stressful driving a motorhome through it. 

I am not saying it will be 100% a San Antonio relief route.  Look at it like this:

75%- it would work as the two 35s in the Dallas Ft Worth area.  Both go through heavy urbanized areas, but one is shorter than the other.  They both ultimately reach the same goal for long haul traffic.  You better believe if I am going to Oklahoma City from Austin, I am taking I35W every time.  I think that warrants enough. By the way, I-35W is a mere 12 miles shorter than I-35E.  By the logic I have been reading here we should bulldoze I-35W immediately.  Not enough distance is cut off.
10%- an interstate connection from Houston-Austin and El Paso
10%- to get Austin indirectly on the I-10 mainline
5%- a San Antonio relief route.

Yes, I understand there are exceptions to the whole splits occurring in rural areas rule.  Like anything, there are situations where the rule is broken.  As always, just because you can, doesn't mean you should. 

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 02, 2020, 03:08:06 PM
By the way, I-35W is a mere 12 miles shorter than I-35E.  By the logic I have been reading here we should bulldoze I-35W immediately.  Not enough distance is cut off.

12 miles shorter over an 88 mile distance. About a 12% savings.

Over a 220 mile distance, only a 4% savings.

Moot point.

I've already said I'm not against the construction of a northern route. I think though that's it's effectiveness as a "shortcut" will be minimal, rather it would serve as an outlet from Austin. I-10 would largely continue serving as the main east-west corridor.

I'd rather see US-290 west of Austin get improved to expressway / divided highway standards with minimal traffic signals and freeway segments where needed before US-290 or SH-71 east of Austin is improved to interstate standards. Get a full 4-lane divided highway / expressway in place, then piecemeal interstate upgrades as needed.

Perhaps another concept could be to upgrade US-183 between Leander and Lampass to interstate standards in order to connect with the Future I-14 to the west which could eventually head towards Midland-Odessa at I-20. Could become an I-x14.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 02, 2020, 03:35:50 PM
Perhaps another concept could be to upgrade US-183 between Leander and Lampass to interstate standards in order to connect with the Future I-14 to the west which could eventually head towards Midland-Odessa at I-20. Could become an I-x14.

Or a numerical extension of the Houston-Austin corridor -- particularly if that becomes a 2nd I-12.  Since it's likely that anything up US 183 will be tolled at least for a few miles past the north end of the present 183A facility, it would be the first TX Interstate  to be deployed over a toll road. 

Given TX DOT habits, TX-183 is probably just going to stay as TX-183, even if a new "I-12" corridor is built thru Austin. I'm skeptical much more will be done to improve TX-183 past the intersection with TX-29 in Liberty Hill. That's where the large, turnpike-ready divided roadway ends. In that area the problem is the competing interest with improving TX-195 between Georgetown and Killeen.

QuoteSplitting I-10 for a relief rout going through Austin for San Antonio by using US 290 between Houston and Austin is a horrible idea.  Traveling westbound you would exit I-10 to get on to northbound I-610 (that section being one of the busiest freeways in Texas) to then get to the Interstate that is to usurp US 290.  That's a lot of weaving and lane changing to get to the shorter route, not to mention the sign overload of explanation how this is a San Antonio relief route.

First of all, I rarely ever see any "relief route" descriptions included on freeway signs. Route numbers and control cities usually suffice. The I-10/I-610/US-290 interchange complex in Houston is jaw-dropping massive. But it has to be for the amount of traffic moving through that zone. The only details that would have to be changed on those signs at all is swapping US-290 shields for Interstate markers if the route is ever upgraded in that manner.

Next, there are multiple ways to get through Houston and Austin. Before too much longer the Northern part of the Houston metro will be served by three beltways, which gives drivers who want to avoid the downtown area and busiest parts of Katy Freeway some alternative choices.

If the people in Austin can ever get it together and properly complete the South leg of the TX-45 turnpike that would also give traffic moving through the Austin area a way to avoid the horribly outdated section of I-35 downtown. TX-45 needs to be extended out West to the US-290 corridor. And that new, narrow segment of TX-45 needs to be extended East to I-35.

The TX-71 corridor is a lousy route choice for anyone North of I-10 in the Houston metro heading toward Austin. They have to drive out of their way down to I-10 and likely through some very busy areas to get to the TX-71 split in Columbus. It's easier taking US-290, even if TX-71 was turned into a full fledged Interstate. TX-71 works better for people driving to Austin from the Southern half of the Houston metro. It's probably no accident that both TX-71 and US-290 have been treated in a fairly equal manner by TX DOT in regard to improvements being sprinkled out in piece meal fashion.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 03, 2020, 03:36:07 PM
The TX-71 corridor is a lousy route choice for anyone North of I-10 in the Houston metro heading toward Austin. They have to drive out of their way down to I-10 and likely through some very busy areas to get to the TX-71 split in Columbus. It's easier taking US-290, even if TX-71 was turned into a full fledged Interstate. TX-71 works better for people driving to Austin from the Southern half of the Houston metro. It's probably no accident that both TX-71 and US-290 have been treated in a fairly equal manner by TX DOT in regard to improvements being sprinkled out in piece meal fashion.

US-290 is strategically located and has connections from both beltways that make it a viable option for pretty much anyone in the metro, whereas SH-71 is only viable for those in the southern half, as you mention.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 03, 2020, 03:36:07 PM
Given TX DOT habits, TX-183 is probably just going to stay as TX-183, even if a new "I-12" corridor is built thru Austin. I'm skeptical much more will be done to improve TX-183 past the intersection with TX-29 in Liberty Hill. That's where the large, turnpike-ready divided roadway ends. In that area the problem is the competing interest with improving TX-195 between Georgetown and Killeen.

Quote from: Splitting I-10 for a relief rout going through Austin for San Antonio by using US 290 between Houston and Austin is a horrible idea.  Traveling westbound you would exit I-10 to get on to northbound I-610 (that section being one of the busiest freeways in Texas) to then get to the Interstate that is to usurp US 290.  That's a lot of weaving and lane changing to get to the shorter route, not to mention the sign overload of explanation how this is a San Antonio relief route.[/quote

First of all, I rarely ever see any "relief route" descriptions included on freeway signs. Route numbers and control cities usually suffice. The I-10/I-610/US-290 interchange complex in Houston is jaw-dropping massive. But it has to be for the amount of traffic moving through that zone. The only details that would have to be changed on those signs at all is swapping US-290 shields for Interstate markers if the route is ever upgraded in that manner.

Next, there are multiple ways to get through Houston and Austin. Before too much longer the Northern part of the Houston metro will be served by three beltways, which gives drivers who want to avoid the downtown area and busiest parts of Katy Freeway some alternative choices.

If the people in Austin can ever get it together and properly complete the South leg of the TX-45 turnpike that would also give traffic moving through the Austin area a way to avoid the horribly outdated section of I-35 downtown. TX-45 needs to be extended out West to the US-290 corridor. And that new, narrow segment of TX-45 needs to be extended East to I-35.

The TX-71 corridor is a lousy route choice for anyone North of I-10 in the Houston metro heading toward Austin. They have to drive out of their way down to I-10 and likely through some very busy areas to get to the TX-71 split in Columbus. It's easier taking US-290, even if TX-71 was turned into a full fledged Interstate. TX-71 works better for people driving to Austin from the Southern half of the Houston metro. It's probably no accident that both TX-71 and US-290 have been treated in a fairly equal manner by TX DOT in regard to improvements being sprinkled out in piece meal fashion.

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.

Quote from: mrsman on July 05, 2020, 09:50:49 AM
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.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 05, 2020, 12:01:40 PM

Quote from: mrsman on July 05, 2020, 09:50:49 AM
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

Quote from: texaskdog on July 05, 2020, 06:51:59 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 05, 2020, 12:01:40 PM

Quote from: mrsman on July 05, 2020, 09:50:49 AM
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.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 05, 2020, 07:40:55 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on July 05, 2020, 06:51:59 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 05, 2020, 12:01:40 PM

Quote from: mrsman on July 05, 2020, 09:50:49 AM
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. 

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 05, 2020, 07:40:55 PM
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 (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.

Quote from: MaxConcrete on July 06, 2020, 10:55:40 PM
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 (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.

Quote from: MaxConcrete on July 06, 2020, 10:55:40 PM
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.

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.

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.

Quote from: MaxConcrete on July 06, 2020, 10:55:40 PM
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

Quote from: jlwm on July 08, 2020, 04:15:36 PM

Quote from: MaxConcrete on July 06, 2020, 10:55:40 PM
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.

Quote from: Echostatic on July 07, 2020, 01:10:40 PM
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

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 09, 2020, 02:22:09 PM

Quote from: Echostatic on July 07, 2020, 01:10:40 PM
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.

Quote from: Echostatic on July 07, 2020, 01:10:40 PM
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. 

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 15, 2020, 04:44:29 PM
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?

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 06, 2020, 07:54:47 PM
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...

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 09, 2020, 07:41:06 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 15, 2020, 04:44:29 PM
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.

Quote from: kphoger on June 15, 2020, 04:59:58 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 15, 2020, 04:44:29 PM
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.