Residents and commissioners press city staff over plan to replace Barton Springs Road bridge

Eric Bailey, deputy director of Capital Delivery Services for the City of Austin, told the Environmental Commission on May 6 that the Barton Springs Road bridge — built in 1926 and expanded in 1946 — is functionally obsolete and shows cracking, exposed steel and delamination that make a light‑touch rehabilitation unlikely.

Bailey said that preliminary engineering and consultant testing show ‘‘there’s no way to have a light touch rehabilitation to this structure’’ and that ‘‘the structural issues here in the deck itself . . . need to be completely replaced.’’ He told commissioners the project is funded mainly by the 2020 general obligation bond program and a $32 million FHWA grant and must complete the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review before construction funding is finalized.

The briefing drew extensive public comment. Neighbors, preservation advocates and scientists told the commission they favor rehabilitation, independent engineering reviews or a parallel pedestrian bridge rather than full demolition. ‘‘Please do what you can now to save the bridge — to save our money and to save the park,’’ said Gail Roady, who identified herself as a volunteer creek steward in Zilker Park. Patricia Bobak, a hydrogeologist and daily Barton Springs swimmer, urged independent engineering oversight and raised concerns about carbon emissions from replacement concrete.

Commissioners repeatedly pressed staff for technical detail and for clarity about process. Commissioner Moretta Ordeales asked about environmental consequences and the ‘‘rush’’ to replace; Bailey said NEPA is being completed now and that environmental impacts and required mitigations will be developed through that process. He estimated NEPA completion in late 2026 to early 2027 and said the project team is coordinating with TxDOT, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Texas Historical Commission, and that the public will be able to comment on NEPA documents.

Several commissioners and speakers noted the bridge’s role as the visual ‘‘gateway’’ to Zilker Park. Commissioner Flurry said the bridge ‘‘sets the tone for the park’’ and emphasized the importance of evaluating impacts on setting and feeling under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Ted Eubanks, who identified himself as a Parks and Recreation board member speaking as a private citizen, described an ongoing, more extensive historic resource assessment and said a previous 2013 assessment was brief and incomplete.

On technical points, Bailey told the commission that a consulting engineer’s structural exploration showed significant longitudinal‑beam deterioration and that, absent rehabilitation, further deterioration could reach significant levels in five to ten years. He said rehabilitation work generally produces a lifecycle of roughly 50 years while full replacement is estimated at 75 years, and that cost estimates for rehabilitation versus replacement are within a wide margin of uncertainty.

Many public speakers and several commissioners called for greater transparency about reports they said were difficult to find. Bailey said the full bridge engineering report has been released except for ‘‘critical infrastructure’’ excerpts that his office and legal counsel held back for safety reasons; he added that the documents were presented to council, to the Historic Landmark Commission and are available on the project website.

What’s next: Bailey said the NEPA process — including coordination with federal and state agencies and public comment — remains underway and that design and permitting steps will follow. The Environmental Commission asked staff to return when environmental analyses and the NEPA product are ready for review so commissioners can examine ecological impacts, archaeological reports and any design changes that would alter the bridge’s setting in Zilker Park.

Commissioners did not take action at this briefing; several said they expect to consider a formal recommendation after NEPA and the historic resource assessment provide more detail.