Fact Check: US 290 from Oak Hill to Dripping Springs

This page is to offer some FAQ and reality check of TxDOT’s proposal against claims made online. My analysis is my own and I do not speak for TxDOT or anyone. For thoughts on how to actually save Dripping Springs, please see Save Dripping Springs.

June 1, 2024 Community Workshop

TxDOT held a Community Workshop at Dripping Springs Ranch Park, accepting public input through June 22. As no new alternatives are proposed yet, the below FAQ still applies to the last known build proposal, “Option 3” from January 2024. TxDOT is likely to provide more than 1 proposal in future public meetings.

On June 1, TxDOT revealed the future speeds and travel times of options 0, 1, 2 and 3 clearly showing the magnitude needed to solve mobility for the future. Highly recommend you understand options 1, 2 and 3 of the TxDOT feasibility study (section 6) before asking TxDOT to invent an unknown option 4 that would consume 3 - 5 more years and possibly be worse than this option 3.

Summary and Data Sources

Yes, the proposal is large. No, it is not as large as claimed outside of TxDOT.

The TxDOT study since 2019 explored smaller alternatives that failed, resulting in the current option 3 proposal at 80% of standard Texas highway size. Images (click to enlarge) and figures presented here are from:

• US 290 from Oak Hill to Dripping Springs TxDOT’s January 2024 public meeting, including:

  • Planning and Feasibility Study - see section 6 for options 1, 2, 3 (now final in June 2024)

  • Proposed Design Schematics detailed drawings and elevations

• City of Dripping Springs Traffic Study - May 2021

All claims, on the other hand, are from web sites or social media, and NOT from TxDOT.

Claim: “TXDOT is proposing a 16 lane expansion of 290W”

False. TxDOT is literally proposing "a six-lane divided facility with adjacent frontage roads" as in the TxDOT images captured here, not at all like the non-TxDOT images on other sites. Since the 4 local lanes already exist today, the expansion is the 6 new freeway lanes that fly over or under the local traffic signals, replacing the dangerous center turn lane. Ten lanes are continuous from one end to the other, double the current five lanes.

“True”. Interchange approaches have up to 6 additional short lanes. This can include 2 AUX/merge, 2 U-turns, 1 right turn, and 1 left turn. This is not wider than the rest of the highway as these short lanes consume the grassy area. Note that the bridges are < 4% of the project length so they are not a great representation of the whole highway.

You can find 16 freeway lanes on portions of I-10 in Katy, TX. But that is no where near Dripping Springs or this TxDOT proposal.

Claim: “this is huge” or “this is a monster”

“True”. Highways are huge, especially freeways in Texas. A standard 6+4 lane divided inter-city Texas freeway like this is 400 feet wide.

False. But due to the overcrowding, TxDOT has reduced the typical footprint here to ~321 feet, the minimum practical for safe grade separated freeway and interchanges. It shrinks even smaller to 300 feet at Ledge Stone and to 250 feet near Canyon Bend. In a few places the right of way expands beyond 321 feet to accommodate water retention, utilities or other reasons.

It is fear mongering to claim this 20% smaller than average freeway is a “monster”. If this were larger than average, or vertical, then you might have a case for “monster”. But that does not exist here.

Claim: “this is 30 feet in the air”

False. This highway is at ground level = zero feet except for interchanges where freeway must flow over or under the traffic signals. The bridges provide 17 to 20 foot clearances. Add the structure thickness of the bridge and the surface is around 22 to 26 feet above the cross street below.

(*) On June 1, TxDOT confirmed the 26.9 clearance shown on 1 of 2 views of Nutty Brown Rd was clearly a 1 digit mistake that would never be built. Nutty brown is 16.9 foot clearance as correctly shown on the other view.

“True”. Only a portion of the surface between Fitzhugh and Circle Drive is higher than 26 feet.

Note that the bridges are < 4% of the project length so they are not a great representation of the whole highway.

Claim: “this will decimate / drastically alter the hill country”

False. The hill country will continue to exist in place unaltered for many miles north, south and west of the highway. The highway width here makes no change to our beautiful expansive hill country that spans 25 counties.

“True”. Land owners and housing developers, on the other hand, alter their portions of the hill country. They do this independent of the width of the highway. The highway itself will be altered only within its new ~321 foot right of way.

Claim: “this will drastically alter the town of Dripping Springs”

True. This will improve traffic flow and make both local and remote trips safer. The traffic LOS will be fixed east of Rob Shelton through 2050 and beyond.

This will drastically alter Cedar Valley and Ledge Stone where sadly many businesses on the north side will be displaced, see next claim.

Downtown businesses will lose parking space by the addition of only 2 lanes there. (Roger Hanks to Rob Shelton is a separate and smaller 6 lane / no-frontage road project in this proposal. Beware the future though.)

Claim: “this will wipe Dripping Springs off the map”

False. Housing is approved independent of the width of the highway. Dripping Springs will expand out of control whether transportation is improved or not.

True only if you meant that it will wipe certain properties or portions of them off the map. Unfortunately the expansion from 120 feet to 321 feet affects too many properties since the final right of way was not established years ago. Sure hope their compensation is sufficient to relocate or rebuild better than before.

In the case of Ledge Stone or any current development, the developer building in the new right of way known since 2020 should pay for their mistake rather than us innocent tax payers.

Claim: “your incredibly inaccurate graphic with green medians resembles nothing like the proposed expansion”

False. The 40 feet green lane separation of the first image on this page is a design fact proven by the schematic shown in the second image on this page, both verbatim from this TxDOT proposal. The green separation is a result of the 6+4=10 through lanes in the 321 feet width and is required for vehicle separation and storm water drainage.

Maybe you want the standard 400 feet wide highway instead? This would double the green gaps from 40 feet to 80 feet, or it could add 40 feet down the middle with 60 feet on the sides. While more attractive, this extra 80 feet would severely impact more properties.

“True”. The grass may be weeds or dirt due to the lack of rain. And it will not be 40 feet wide near the interchanges. There the extra AUX and turn lanes consume much of the green area to fit in the same 321 feet.

Claim: “this will be similar to I-35 in Austin”

False. The schematics show that this is more like a narrow version of I-35 in Kyle with the grass separation reduced to 40 feet as shown above and below. In many places the AUX/merge lanes reduce the grass further while the overall width does not expand.

In contrast, I-35 in Austin is often wider with more lanes in several places. Austin also has lanes elevated above the ground for long distances with even more expansion under construction. These huge city features are not on this proposal.

Claim: “this looks like a 15 lane overpass in Dallas”

False. The picture on another web site shows 15 lanes elevated over more than an intersection in Dallas. This will not exist here. This proposal is for only the 6 through lanes and sometimes 2 AUX/merge lanes to be elevated over the bridge only at the interchange. So this is at most 8 lanes over the bridge. Trautwein and Highwater interchanges send the freeway lanes under an even smaller crossing bridge at the surface level.

Additionally, all bridges are short with 2 supports except for Fitzhugh to Circle Drive. These are so close together that the bridge must remain elevated over 11 supports. But on this longest stretch only 6 lanes are elevated as shown here.

Claim: “this looks like S I-35 at Ben White & Manchaca”

False. This is physically impossible as such a place does not even exist! I-35 never crosses Manchaca.

“True”. But Ben White and Manchaca does exist and a web site shows this. The image includes an elevated on ramp that does not exist in this proposal. If that extra lane were not there, then it would be a closer approximation. Also, Ben White remains elevated for a long distance west of Manchaca while extended elevation exists in this proposal only over 11 supports as shown here in previous claim.

Claim: “this is not needed, just do nothing”

False. This is TxDOT’s “no build” baseline, let’s label it “Option 0”. They will gladly go spend your tax money elsewhere if not here.

But Grade E LOS already exists in some places with > 33,000 trips per day (2018) and 20 21 people have lost their lives in crashes since 2014. 4.8% of crashes are severe compared to 2.8% state average. How many lives should be lost before safety improvements are made?

This is forecast to grow to > 84,000 trips per day by 2040. If decision, final plan, property acquisition, utility relocation and funding take 5 years then construction likely starts after 2030 with completion after 2035. How is this is not needed a decade from now with 250% of today’s traffic? Or 30 years after that? Putting > 50,000 trips per day around a middle turn lane could be considered negligent.

Claim: “just add more traffic lights”

False. This just makes traffic LOS worse. It is the signals and overloaded lane count that already cause delays. TxDOT will not target Grade F results that make no improvements in safety and efficiency.

Claim: “just add one lane in each direction”

False. This is the “Option 1” in section 6.1 of the Feasibility Study:

“Option 1: Adding one additional lane in each direction for a total of three lanes in each direction, with the existing signalized intersections remaining in place. The traffic analysis results determined that this option would continue to operate at a poor LOS E/F along most US 290 study corridor roadway segments and intersections. Consequently, Option 1 was dismissed from further consideration resulting in the development and evaluation of Option 2.” -TxDOT

Claim: “just go 6 lane divided with Michigan left turns”

False. A "Michigan left turn" is similar to today's (June 2024) US 290 East to Scenic Brook North. In other words, you go past the intersection to a U-turn then across ALL opposite fast lanes to a right turn to your exit. To enter highway (Scenic Brook North to US 290 East) you turn right, cross ALL fast traffic lanes and make a U-turn to merge with high speed traffic.

While this works today it is intended to be temporary. We have heard online that some residents are already afraid to cross the current 2 busy highway lanes. How will they cross 3 instead? And for most streets, the traffic signal must go red to enable cross traffic which backs up all highway lanes at rush hour. Then crossing 3 lanes becomes impossible, backing up the U-turns. Then the traffic doubles or triples by 2054 design year!

It seems Michigan left is not intended for a 6 lane highway with over 80,000 trips per day. Someone please show us an example where this works. The rest of us want reasonable over/under passes to separate through from local traffic in this area for the next 40 years and beyond.

“True”. If you wish to upgrade this wide build to Option 3 freeway later. Michigan left requires very wide median making it just as wide as divided freeway! But this is a waste of tax payer money to build the highway twice instead of once.

The U-turn radius must be the same minimum as TxDOT proposed to safely turn semi-trailer trucks. Traditionally the oncoming lanes are inside the U and it can go even narrower using the “bulb out” or “loon” trick, but both are more dangerous as you cross perpendicular to fast oncoming traffic. If you instead move the oncoming lanes outside the U-turn, give a merge lane for crossing and add a dedicated right turn exit lane (like today’s Scenic Brook example) then you are safer moving in the same direction as fast traffic, but now you are just as wide as Option 3!

Either way, the safety of this is highly questionable with semi-trailers, cars and motorcycles perpendicular to or much slower than 3 lanes of fast highway traffic while making the U-turn without a signal.

Claim: “just add interchanges without the frontage roads”

False. This is the “Option 2” in section 6.1 of the Feasibility Study:

“Option 2: The same as Option 1 plus adding overpasses and ramps at major intersections. The traffic analysis results determined that this option would slightly relieve congestion at the major intersections but would continue to operate at a poor LOS E/F along most US 290 study corridor roadway segments from Trautwein Road to the US 290 western intersection with Circle Drive. Consequently, Option 2 was also dismissed from further consideration resulting in the development and evaluation of Option 3.” -TxDOT

The reason conventional intersections don’t work in Texas is that the requisite nearby parallel streets do not exist. In places without frontage roads, interchanges take you to nearby parallel streets that provide business access. But those streets do not exist in this area where all businesses are built right on the highway. No one planned and built the parallel street spanning all properties in advance, so you are stuck with mandatory frontage road for local access.

Claim: “they want us to use the frontage roads for local access”

True. This is the only way to get to local businesses and some residences while having a grade separated freeway for through traffic. Where would you build parallel streets instead? See previous claim.

Claim: “sign a petition to send TxDOT back to the drawing board”

False. TxDOT is already at the drawing board during this environmental study phase. That petition already worked and is no longer needed. As of the June 1 update, the clock is reset and the public feedback time extended and being reviewed. In future meetings, TxDOT will likely present > 1 build option based on your input along with no build.

Note that the petition was based on false or misleading fear mongering claims, see them above and below.

Note that the petition offered no alternative, so what did its signers sign up for? Did it mean you reject the original Option 3 from January? With option 0, 1, 2 and now 3 ruled out, you are requesting an unknown option 4? When it is revealed in 3-5 years, what will it be? You might hope it would be a divided 6 lane highway with protected U turns at the signals. But if this is LOS E/F in 2050, it is also automatically rejected. So then what is it? 26 miles of backage roads 1000 feet away? Fitzhugh a freeway to 281? These are impractical, far more destructive and costly than Option 3.

We the people cannot afford to repeat the 30+ year traffic jam of Oak Hill. It is crucial that this is approved and proceeds as quickly as practical to have any hope of handling the coming 84,000+ trips per day to save our town.

Claim: “emergency response will be longer”

False. Improving emergency response time is a goal of this proposal. The worsening LOS slows down emergency services too, mostly by being stuck in congestion at the traffic signals or blocked by the accident with no alternate paths.

Like all traffic, emergency vehicles will flow continuously over the traffic lights and get to you sooner. Taking the U-turn to get to you on the other side is often no longer than waiting for the oncoming traffic to clear as you do today.

Claim: “property values will plummet”

False. Frontage road properties in particular are more valuable to commercial developers. Most residential properties are further away from the highway and studies say values go up when mobility improves. Being “closer” to Austin makes you more valuable. In central Texas, the width of the highway has little to do with property values that continue to follow the overall area trends. This is proven by other Austin suburbs that got highway expansion and continued to go up (and down) in values with Austin.

Did Oak Hill property values plummet in 2021 when construction started? They did not. Did values plummet in 2024 with construction well under way? They did not, they decreased the same as the whole Austin area. Will Oak Hill values plummet in 2027 when the Oakhill Parkway is complete and working? Again they will simply follow area trends.

“True”. But many of us are here to live, not to sell. So if we happen to get lower value and pay less taxes, that would be a wonderful benefit. Actually, values already dropped but that has nothing to do with this highway proposal. Values dropped all around Austin, independent of highway size.

Claim: “this will cause air pollution”

False. Cars and trucks cause the pollution, not highways, and modern vehicles less so. Parking all exhaust pipes at high density at traffic signals is more pollution than letting them continue through quickly on a freeway in 1/3 of the time.

Claim: “this will cause noise pollution”

False. The highway is already there with cars already making the noise, so this is no change. I live within 1/2 mile and don’t hear the highway except for sirens.

Claim: “this will cause light pollution”

False. TxDOT is aware of the Dark Sky status of Dripping Springs. They are planning color of 3000K or lower directed down only where required such as on ramps and intersections. The intent is to project no light upward and preserve our dark skies.

Claim: “but I moved out here to escape the city”

False. Sorry, but you did that wrong. To fully escape city growth and traffic, you will need to be at least 5 miles from all city limits and highways. 10 miles or more is even better to escape city growth for more years. If you need rural Hill Country, then you have over 20 other counties to choose from, most further from cities.

True. But many of us are thankful to live right here in this beautiful Gateway to the Hill Country. While close to the city and its traffic, we still enjoy plenty of hills and trees not touched by the highway plan.

Claim: “this affects me”

True. Of course, this affects us all. Those losing some or all property are affected the most, see above claim.

The rest of us are affected by the safety and efficiency of the highway we must travel every day or week. None of us have any power to slow down the land sales or traffic. “Don’t build it and they won’t come” has never worked here. And the laws let everything build before the transportation. Our only hope is to try to get road improvements ahead of developers, as impossible as this is.

Claim: “your fact checks are all false”

Oh. I studied the data and public documents as best I could. Others have an opposite view. This is normal. Everyone is free to believe TxDOT would build what it drew, or build what someone else said. I believe they would make a final plan and then build that (with some design/build flexibility), just like they are doing in Oak Hill Parkway. We saw TxDOT listening at the June 1 workshop. The above still stands per the Option 3 from January 2024 as it is the last known proposal.

Claim: “your comment here”

Let me know what I missed and I will try to look up an answer.

Tim Witham <twitham@sbcglobal.net>