Williamson County (Northern Austin Metro) Projects

[thisdj78]

Kenney Fort Boulevard extension between Forest Creek Drive and SH45 opens to public

https://www.roundrocktexas.gov/news/kenney-fort-boulevard-extension-between-forest-creek-drive-and-sh45-opens-to-public/

[thisdj78]

SH 130 in WilCo will be widened to 3 lanes after funding approval

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/sh-130-wilco-expanding-into-williamson-county

[The Ghostbuster]

Couldn't the proposed widening of TX 130 have continued a short distance further south to the northern segment of TX 45?

[thisdj78]

Couldn't the proposed widening of TX 130 have continued a short distance further south to the northern segment of TX 45?

I wondered that too. Only explanation I can think of is that maybe funding has already been set for widening from Dessau/685 to Gattis prior to this article, or they misspoke and the new expansion will include the segment south of Gattis rd.

[longhorn]

It makes sense (I know this is TxDot) that this expansion is from 45 to I-35 north of Georgetown. And while we are at the intersection of I-35/130 and 195, can we fix the crisscrossing that happens between the I-35 to 195 traffic and the 130-I-35 traffic. Computer modeling over 20 years ago did not see this being a problem?

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.6898939,-97.6697256,3812m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTIxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.692098,-97.6552683,3a,35.9y,15.21h,93.69t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sX2QKr9yIgIcnvyPisEEgYA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-3.6904068259029117%26panoid%3DX2QKr9yIgIcnvyPisEEgYA%26yaw%3D15.21417901635715!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTIxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

[thisdj78]

It makes sense (I know this is TxDot) that this expansion is from 45 to I-35 north of Georgetown. And while we are at the intersection of I-35/130 and 195, can we fix the crisscrossing that happens between the I-35 to 195 traffic and the 130-I-35 traffic. Computer modeling over 20 years ago did not see this being a problem?

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.6898939,-97.6697256,3812m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTIxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.692098,-97.6552683,3a,35.9y,15.21h,93.69t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sX2QKr9yIgIcnvyPisEEgYA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-3.6904068259029117%26panoid%3DX2QKr9yIgIcnvyPisEEgYA%26yaw%3D15.21417901635715!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTIxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

I don't know why they didn't make SH130 end right where SH95 crosses I-35. Could have made a multilevel interchange instead of the crazy merge situation.

I do know that there are plans to extend SH195 past I-35 to SH95 north of Taylor, so I wonder how that will impact the current intersection there.

[MaxConcrete]

The RM 2243 project has received a FONSI (Finding of no significant impact). It is planned to be a future 4-lane freeway with continuous frontage roads.

Announcement

More info on the Wilco project site.

This project is among the Wilco future freeways most likely to be built. In the short term, the FONSI will enable ROW acquisition by TxDOT. The Wilco site says phase 1 will start in summer 2025. No details are given, but I presume phase 1 will be one side of the frontage roads, to establish the new alignment of the corridor on the west end. With I-35 consuming most funding in Austin for about another 7 years, I don't expect any TxDOT-funded construction until the 2030s.

As an interesting observation on the east end of the project, the preliminary schematic showed both frontage roads dropping down into the quarry. The final schematic shows the frontage roads on the existing ground level of RM 2243.

[thisdj78]

I drove down Chandler road for the first time in several months and looks like they have started a badly needed widening project (it's currently a 2 lane road). Long term plan is for it to be a controlled access freeway, so I'm not sure if they are widening it to a frontage road configuration with a wide median for future lanes or are they simply just adding adjacent lanes:

https://www.wilcotx.gov/839/Chandler-Road

[thisdj78]

Cedar Park approves $500M tollway study along Ronald Reagan Boulevard

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/williamson-county/cedar-park-toll-ronald-reagan-boulevard-study/269-b9dc6b59-8136-45a6-a608-5312f14e7a2f

[I-55]

Cedar Park approves $500M tollway study along Ronald Reagan Boulevard

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/williamson-county/cedar-park-toll-ronald-reagan-boulevard-study/269-b9dc6b59-8136-45a6-a608-5312f14e7a2f

The way this article is written led me initially to believe the study itself would be $500 million lol. I also don't understand building a toll road only two miles from another toll road. But maybe that's just how Texas rolls. The 30 mile number also seems out of left field as the project limits the article describes should only be 11-12 miles. The scope of the proposal is also poorly written, as the article mentions 8-lane controlled access roadway, then says "a toll lane in both directions at RM 1431 and two raised toll lanes in both directions heading north." Made me think it would be a freeway with HOT lanes. The next sentence then says, "The project would also include two to three frontage lanes in each direction with intersections. Officials say existing frontage lanes would remain free to drivers." So what is it? Is it a tollway? Is it a freeway with HOT lnes and frontage roads? Is it frontage roads with HOT lanes? Idk at this point. Also the $500 million number seems too low for that much construction.

[MaxConcrete]

I agree with I-55: the reporting is terrible. A better source of information is the linked video from the Cedar Park council meeting.

The map in the news report video has a major error. It shows the route following Ronald Reagan to FM 2243, and then going east on FM 2243. The correct route follows Ronald Reagan all the way to I-35.

Highlights from the linked video from the Cedar Park council meeting.

• Williamson County asked TxDOT to extend Parmer north of Whitestone in 2000, but TxDOT declined. So Williamson County started building it.
• Williamson County has done all it can do with its resources, so it is now attempting to make it a toll road. CTMRA would do all the financing and construction.
• The proposed toll road would have 2x2 main lanes. The cross section shown suggests it could have low standards, possibly lacking shoulders.
• Section 1, from Whitestone to SH 29, is estimated to cost $523 million.
• TxDOT is still studying Parmer south of Whitestone, which is the southward continuation of Ronald Reagan Blvd. It is "most likely" there will be one managed lane each way south of Whitestone. That seems like a major problem in the southbound direction, where 2 lanes go down to 1.
• CTRMA will do a "T&R" (traffic & revenue) study which will take around a year.

My opinion is that this concept has multiple problems. As I-55 mentioned, it is very close to the 183 toll road which is owned by CTRMA. In other words, CTRMA would be building a competitor to one of its existing projects. It's a lot of money for a low-quality, low capacity toll road. Having 1x1 south of Whitestone and 2x2 north of Whitestone is a problem.

In my view, the Reagan Tollway should start at FM 2243 and go north. The Reagan toll road should connect into the 183 toll road via FM 2243 (which is planned to be a freeway or tollway).

[longhorn]

It makes sense (I know this is TxDot) that this expansion is from 45 to I-35 north of Georgetown. And while we are at the intersection of I-35/130 and 195, can we fix the crisscrossing that happens between the I-35 to 195 traffic and the 130-I-35 traffic. Computer modeling over 20 years ago did not see this being a problem?

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.6898939,-97.6697256,3812m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTIxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.692098,-97.6552683,3a,35.9y,15.21h,93.69t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sX2QKr9yIgIcnvyPisEEgYA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-3.6904068259029117%26panoid%3DX2QKr9yIgIcnvyPisEEgYA%26yaw%3D15.21417901635715!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTIxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Shocking, another accident today at this same interchange. A truck and a CUV trying to occupy the same space at the same time. The amount of truck traffic is increasing (guess the trucking companies consider the toll more than worth it compared to sitting on the I-35 parking lot), and the number of employees driving home to Central Texas and north Georgetown is increasing. What do they think will happen when that much-needed extra lane of traffic crosses over 195 traffic to merge onto I-35?

[thisdj78]

East Wilco Highway Segment 3 opens to traffic

https://www.kxan.com/traffic/williamson-county-traffic/east-wilco-highway-segment-3-opens-to-traffic/

[MaxConcrete]

I was driving through the area near the Samsung construction zone, and I saw a tent with a group of people at FM 3343. It turned out it was the official groundbreaking ceremony for the construction of the FM 3343 overpass. I missed the main event, but there was still some activity and I took these photos.

When leaving the event I saw a car-carrier with a load of Teslas going to a parking lot on the southeast corner of the intersection. That parking lot is the site where Teslas are loaded onto trains.

http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20221026-austin_023-1600.JPG


http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20221026-austin_019-1600.JPG

Ribbon cutting (X)

[thisdj78]

$217M planned for Pflugerville roads, trails

https://communityimpact.com/austin/pflugerville-hutto/transportation/2025/08/11/217m-planned-for-pflugerville-roads-trails/

[Rothman]

$217M planned for Pflugerville roads, trails

https://communityimpact.com/austin/pflugerville-hutto/transportation/2025/08/11/217m-planned-for-pflugerville-roads-trails/

Key word: "Planned"

[thisdj78]

$217M planned for Pflugerville roads, trails

https://communityimpact.com/austin/pflugerville-hutto/transportation/2025/08/11/217m-planned-for-pflugerville-roads-trails/

Key word: "Planned"

I'm just the messenger

[MaxConcrete]

Google maps shows work underway on the next section of the East Wilco (future) Freeway, connecting it to the frontage road section already in place along FM 3349. There is also evidence (view) of a 360-foot-wide right-of-way corridor for the Samsung Highway (future freeway) at the East Wilco corridor.

A TxDOT news update reports that work is underway on the first phase of the RM 2243 future freeway. This phase is the new alignment on the west end, and consists of one frontage road.

Central Texas: RM 2243 breaks ground in Williamson County

In Williamson County, TxDOT joined county leaders, the City of Leander and federal partners to break ground on Phase 1a of the RM 2243 project. The project will reconstruct and widen 3.5 miles of RM 2243 between 183A and Garey Park, adding a center turn lane, realigning curves to improve safety and building a shared-use path for pedestrians and cyclists. Construction is expected to be completed in early 2028.

However, on the east end of the corridor (near Southwest Bypass) I noticed that the quarry has recently excavated the future corridor. There is no longer sufficient width at ground level for the freeway. It's possible that they want the freeway to drop into the excavated quarry to provide access to the quarry (presumably for future development). But this does seem unexpected to me, and possibly a serious complication for the freeway corridor.


I took a closer look at some of the planned future freeway corridors in the Williamson plan, and it appears that some are falling victim to downsizing. Many corridors are only 200 feet wide, not sufficient for a decent quality freeway but wide enough to accommodate a four-lane freeway with frontage roads. For example, Corridor I-2 was downsized to a 200-foot wide corridor and the corridor K freeway was entirely canceled. In other places I see development encroaching on planned freeway corridors, such as along west SH 29.

Realistically, downsizing was going to happen. The freeway plan was too ambitious and too expensive, and many planned freeway corridors are redundant with nearby corridors. If half the freeway corridors are eventually protected/preserved, I think future needs will be met. I also think resources may be focused in the east county, especially around the massive Samsung site, since there appears to be minimal opposition in that area and potential huge development in the upcoming years. The Samsung Freeway will probably become a priority (map, schematic).

[thisdj78]

The Samsung Freeway will probably become a priority ([url=https://www.wilcotx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9077/Corridor-A2-Fact-Sheet-PDF]map, schematic).

I wonder if they are now looking to Samsung Freeway + Wilco Hwy to serve as the freeway connection between Hutto and Taylor (vs. upgrading 79)

[MaxConcrete]

I wonder if they are now looking to Samsung Freeway + Wilco Hwy to serve as the freeway connection between Hutto and Taylor (vs. upgrading 79)

I think the answer is Yes. US 79 is not slated to become a freeway west of Taylor in the plan. The TxDOT UTP shows only one project on US 79, and it is a small ($61 million) project near I-35.

The long-term plan also shows the Chandler road corridor north of Taylor and Hutto. However, the right-of-way appears to be 180 to 200 feet wide, which means it is unlikely to become a freeway. I don't know the logic of Williamson County for the right-of-way preservation. Why do they show a corridor as a future freeway, and then preserve a narrow corridor? I suppose funding is a reason. But I think it may be better to downsize the freeway plan to something which is feasible, and then actually preserve corridors of sufficient width for the feasible corridors.

[The Ghostbuster]

If the Samsung Highway is upgraded into the Samsung Freeway, how likely is it that the US 79 designation will be shifted to the route?

[thisdj78]

I wonder if they are now looking to Samsung Freeway + Wilco Hwy to serve as the freeway connection between Hutto and Taylor (vs. upgrading 79)

I think the answer is Yes. US 79 is not slated to become a freeway west of Taylor in the plan. The TxDOT UTP shows only one project on US 79, and it is a small ($61 million) project near I-35.

The long-term plan also shows the Chandler road corridor north of Taylor and Hutto. However, the right-of-way appears to be 180 to 200 feet wide, which means it is unlikely to become a freeway. I don't know the logic of Williamson County for the right-of-way preservation. Why do they show a corridor as a future freeway, and then preserve a narrow corridor? I suppose funding is a reason. But I think it may be better to downsize the freeway plan to something which is feasible, and then actually preserve corridors of sufficient width for the feasible corridors.

Amazingly, there's hardly any development along Chandler Rd (yet). As long as they keep any new construction well away from the current ROW, they could conceivably make it wider. Schematics show 350' ROW:

https://www.wilcotx.gov/839/Chandler-Road

[thisdj78]

If the Samsung Highway is upgraded into the Samsung Freeway, how likely is it that the US 79 designation will be shifted to the route?

Highly unlikely. At the most it would be a new State Route.

[MaxConcrete]

Here are some photos taken Saturday (March 21)

East Wilco Highway

This view looks north in the middle of the wide median of FM 3349 (East Wilco Highway) at Samsung highway. Both sides of the frontage roads are open to traffic. Full size


This view shows the overpass at US 79 (full size)


These views show the East Wilco highway frontage road construction, southwest of FM 3349. The pavement is done, but work has not yet started at the FM 1660 intersection so opening is not imminent. There is also a stream crossing which was not visible (so I don't know the status).

Looking northeast at FM 1660 (full size)


Looking southwest at Cedar Fork road (full size)


Samsung Highway

The road is complete as a four-lane, arterial-style road. However, it is not in a frontage road configuration. I don't know if this has any significance for long-term freeway status.

FM 2243

Work is well underway on the new alignment connecting it to Hero Way. At FM 2243 I did not see evidence of clearance of a freeway-width corridor. Along Hero Way the erosion control barriers indicate a wide, freeway-quality right-of-way.

This view shows the new alignment at FM 2243 (full size)


Looking east at Ronald Reagan Blvd (full size)


Looking east along Hero Way. The erosion barrier appears to mark the north edge of the right-of-way. Hero Way is far to the right, near the smaller power poles.(full size)


Liberty Hill Bypass

The short section between FM 1869 and Bagdad Road is open and appears to be 100% complete.

[MaxConcrete]

The recommendation for Parmer Lane is revealed at today's public meeting.

The recommendation north of SH 45 is consistent with the Williamson County long term plan, which shows Parmer (and its north extension Ronald Reagan Boulevard) as a future freeway corridor.

I saw a report several months ago that the north section recommendation was likely to have only two main lanes, like the south section recommendation. Williamson County asked the CTRMA (toll authority) to study adding tolled main lanes on Ronald Reagan Boulevard north of this study (north of FM 1431). Building four toll lanes north of FM 1431 would be pointless if there is only two main lanes south of FM 1431. So maybe there was coordination to preserve the toll lanes option.

The minimal information in the public meeting leaves many questions.

• Is the recommendation north of SH 45 for a freeway, or just overpasses at intersections? Would it be a non-limited access road with no traffic signals, sometimes called a superstreet, New Jersey freeway or RIRO (right-in, right-out)?
• There is no mention of tolls, but I'm thinking toll lanes are most likely for getting this done anytime soon.
• On the south section, two main lanes (one each way) is an unusual configuration. No details are provided, but it seems this would be at intersections only, and they could also be tolled or HOT.
• There is no mention of displacements, which suggests any improvements would be squeezed into the existing narrow corridor. That will be difficult.
• The meeting presentation has no cost estimates, and specifically says there is no timeline for the next steps in the process. If CTRMA is studying the corridor, any future action will be done after the CTMRA finding.

Full size