Craddock extension bumped from plan

The Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending that the San Marcos City Council approve the Transportation Master Plan — as long as the plan excludes the Craddock Extension.

“The Craddock extension doesn’t make sense,” commissioner Kate McCarty said. “I can’t come to grips with the idea that we would do that.”

Rohit Vij, senior project engineer with the city, gave a presentation on the master plan, which includes the Thoroughfare Plan, Bike Infrastructure Plan and Greenways Plan, before a public hearing on the plan at Tuesday’s P&Z meeting. Vij outlined the city’s efforts to engage residents in the planning process.

“We worked very closely with the public,” he said, noting the series of meetings and workshops that were held during the plan’s development. “We kept them informed and involved.”

During the public hearing, Dianne Wassenich spoke, representing the San Marcos River Foundation.

“I am in favor of and against some of the transportation plan,” she said.

She spoke favorably of the trail plans, noting that their alignments were slightly off but that it “will all get sorted out at some point in the future.” She also spoke favorably of the development of the plan itself to help guide development.

However, she said, “You need to consider what this transportation plan can do. Specifically, I’m concerned about the Craddock Extension, which is an inner loop right above the springs.”

Wassenich expressed concerns about previous councils that allowed “bad things” to happen and about the amount of spending that developers do during elections. Right now, she said, “There’s not a lot of rubber-stamping going on. But you have to understand that could change any time — any November. And if you have something on a transportation plan, it can quickly change and be implemented.”

She noted that Hays County has taken the Craddock Extension out of its transportation plan and, although including it in the city’s plan does not necessarily mean it will be built, it does create the possibility.

“We’re real concerned about this. We do not want it to be in there,” she said. 

San Marcos resident James Baker also spoke against the Craddock Extension, saying that even though the extension would alleviate traffic congestion in the city, the safety of the river should take precedence over traffic conditions.

“This will be an enabler road,” he said. “It will enable more density, more traffic and more development in an area that’s really the worst area for development for our river and springs.”

The significance of the Craddock Extension

The proposed extension of Craddock Avenue would create a new route for people to get to and from Interstate 35 from the west side of the city. The extension would give regional traffic a route to go around San Marcos, rather than through town, to get between the interstate and the Hill Country. It would alleviate traffic congestion on Aquarena Springs, Sessom Drive, Hopkins Street and other major thoroughfares in the city. However, the proposed route for the road passes through a highly environmentally sensitive area and right above the springs that feed the San Marcos River. Runoff from that area goes into the aquifer, as shown by Edwards Aquifer Authority dye tests, Wassenich has said. Another option for a connector between the interstate and the west side of San Marcos and the hills to the west of town is known as the Northwest Loop. This proposed road is farther out from the city and, though it still passes through the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, does not pass near the springs. It would cost about twice as much as the Craddock extension, city staff has said.

Commissioner Lee Porterfield noted that currently, if there were ever a major fire on the west side of San Marcos, there are only two roads to get out. However, he wondered why the Craddock extension was still being considered.

“I didn’t know why it’s still in there, because it still has a lot of negative connotations with the people,” he said.

The commissioners’ choice

Commissioner Betseygail Rand asked Wassenich to discuss her understanding of the differences between the Craddock Extension and the Northwest Loop in terms of impact and feasibility.

“Our point of view is that the two do not both have to be built,” Wassenich said. One of the chief differences is that the Northwest Loop is “not within a stone’s throw of the springs.”

Wassenich pointed out that Vij’s presentation, which showed the effects on traffic in San Marcos if neither the loop nor the extension is built, is not helpful because it does not show the effects on traffic if one or the other is built.

“What y’all need to know is the difference between if you don’t have the Craddock Extension or you don’t have the Northwest Loop,” she said.

Commissioner Angie Ramirez pointed out that the decision on Craddock highlights the importance of the other parts of the plan — specifically the bicycle and pedestrian elements.

“There are a lot of us that only live less than a mile from the things we need to get to. … We can strengthen the other ways to get there,” she said, and alleviate some congestion that way. “The parts of this plan that are about walking and biking that have to do with the core of the city are so important.”

The motion to recommend the Transportation Master Plan without the Craddock extension passed unanimously, with Jim Garber absent. The city council will consider approval of the plan at its next meeting, scheduled for Aug. 7. The plan can be viewed online at https://bit.ly/2KeCUpl.