Council calls for revisions for proposed MoPac South expansion

City Council is pushing for changes to the proposed MoPac South expansion to make the project fit with the city’s mobility, environmental and sustainability goals.

Last week, Council passed a resolution that emphasizes refining the project, overseen by the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, to integrate transit-oriented features such as express bus services, park-and-ride facilities, and safe pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. It also prioritizes minimizing the environmental impact, including limiting increases in vehicle miles traveled, greenhouse gas emissions, impervious cover and tree canopy loss.

The resolution directs city staff to collaborate with regional partners – including CTRMA, Capital Metro and the Texas Department of Transportation – to identify a park-and-ride location south of William Cannon Drive. That facility, a key component of the Project Connect System Plan approved by voters in 2020, is seen as critical to enhancing transit options in Southwest Austin.

The MoPac South project has been under consideration for over a decade, facing delays because of community pushback and environmental concerns. The current proposal includes adding two tolled lanes in each direction along an 8-mile stretch of MoPac through South Austin, with up to 13 lanes in operation in the area near Austin High School.

Council’s action reflects concerns about the project’s potential effects on air quality and ecologically sensitive areas, such as the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, which could harm federally protected endangered species. With transportation shown as the leading source of carbon emissions in the region, commenters on the plan stressed the need to commit to sustainability and reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles.

Miriam Schoenfield, a board member for the Rethink 35 advocacy group, said the resolution is needed to prevent another area of the city from becoming increasingly dependent on low-occupancy vehicles.

“I don’t think many of you need convincing that highway expansions in our city is a bad idea. They make the city a worse place to live. They fly in the face of a dozen or so city goals and plans,” she said. “They support development patterns harmful for the city, and it’s economically and environmentally unsustainable. If there’s one idea that I really want to underscore it’s that these projects are not just bad, but really bad, and bad enough to put our full weight behind. And that’s because every single highway expansion that we do is like pressing a button that spurs this negative feedback loop that spirals forever.”

City staff will submit formal comments to CTRMA by the Dec. 29 public feedback deadline. The city manager is required to provide a written update to Council by May 2025, detailing progress on integrating the transit features and addressing environmental concerns.

Council Member Paige Ellis emphasized the importance of ensuring the MoPac South project aligns with and supports Southwest Austin’s multimodal transportation initiatives, including the Project Connect system, the YBC Trail, Violet Crown Trail, South Austin Trail Network and Safe Routes to School projects. Ellis praised CTRMA for its openness to feedback and its focus on environmentally friendly funding mechanisms, while also stressing the need for the agency to remain mindful of the risks of inducing additional traffic and the environmental sensitivities of the area.

“We do need (CTRMA) to be mindful of the impacts of inducing more traffic and these sensitive environmental areas,” she said. “I know (Austin Independent School District) was mentioned by one of our speakers that they have a vested interest in as well in trying to make sure that the school traffic patterns and some of the other mobility issues that happen with AISD are going to be fully addressed through this project.”

Photo by Lars Plougmann made available through a Creative Commons license.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.