Council approves grant award to replace Barton Springs Road Bridge

A long-running debate over replacing the iconic Barton Springs Road Bridge appears to be settled, with City Council’s unanimous vote Thursday to formally accept $32 million in grant funds for the project.

Although the Council voted in 2023 to move forward with replacing the bridge, funding wasn’t available to cover construction costs. That changed late last year with the award from the U.S. Department of Transportation. The required $8 million local match is already available in the Transportation and Public Works Department’s capital budget.

The bridge, which was built in 1925 and expanded in 1946, is nearing the end of its lifespan, Transportation and Public Works Director Richard Mendoza told the Council in response to questions from the dais. He said the bridge is in fair condition structurally, but the existing bridge dimensions, narrow sidewalks and bike lanes do not meet the city’s current design standards. The vehicle load limit also presents a safety concern, Mendoza said.

“It’s quite possible that at the next biannual inspection in 2026 I may be required to load limit that bridge in the interest of public safety,” he said.

Some Council members expressed appreciation for the bridge’s historic significance given its art-deco design and graceful arches; moreover, the bridge is a contributing structure to the Zilker Park National Register Historic District.

Council Members Ryan Alter and Marc Duchen both seemed torn about the prospect of demolishing the bridge and asked about the feasibility of rehabilitation rather than demolition and replacement – questions that had been raised by previous City Councils over the last decade. Historical and environmental advocates have long opposed the bridge’s replacement.

Ahead of the vote, Alter noted the longstanding struggle between trying to preserve a historic structure while prioritizing public safety. “If those two things are put in conflict, we do have a duty to keep the public safe,” said, suggesting he may ask for a postponement to allow for more time to consider the case.

He said he had heard mixed opinions about the project from residents at a recent Barton Hills neighborhood meeting. “Some people want to keep the bridge as is – and I get that – but others talked about the fire risk and evacuation risk, and what happens if this bridge is further constrained” during evacuations with only two routes out of the hilly neighborhood.

One Barton Hills resident, Joe Gieselman, spoke in support of replacing the bridge because of its public safety risk. “I have some experience with bridges,” said the retired director of Travis County’s transportation department. “They never seem to get better with age.”

Mendoza said the replacement project will take three to four years, while traffic lanes east and west will remain open. He said he and his staff are exploring ideas to compress the construction schedule and limit the impact on vehicle and pedestrian traffic. He also reminded Council that the grant application the city submitted to the federal transportation agency was specific to the bridge’s replacement, not rehabilitation, and that he didn’t relish the idea of having to return the funding if construction doesn’t proceed.

Council Member Paige Ellis recalled the community discussion of replacing the bridge when she worked for an environmental consulting firm, years before she was on the dais.

“I hope we can figure out how to put this to rest,” said Ellis. “The bridge is going to need to be replaced at some point … we’ve discussed some of these options and I’ve been to the community input meetings over the past few years trying to sort out how this moves forward. But at the end of the day, my largest concern is always going to be about the safety of the folks that need to use these spaces, whether they’re roads, bridges, or shared-use pathways.”

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.