U.S. Highway 380 expansion project pits ‘neighbor against neighbor’ in Collin County

On most Fridays, a group of Tucker Hill residents can be found at Petra, a Tex-Mex spot in McKinney where they put a few tables together, grab a drink and catch up with one another while munching on chips and queso.

Lately, a hot topic for the group of regulars has been the proposed plans by the Texas Department of Transportation to expand U.S. Highway 380, which was highlighted as a priority by the state agency, Collin County and the North Central Texas Council of Governments to support growth.

“It was somewhat of an issue before, but now it has become more of an issue as we’re getting closer to the decision as to which plan they’re going to use, so that’s why the conversation has been more vocal lately,” said Jim Cruse, who lives in Tucker Hill, an HOA-managed neighborhood that, according to its website, has one of the largest, privately-owned fountains in the country.

While there are five options being considered as part of TxDOT’s environmental impact study to improve traffic on U.S. 380 in Collin County, two segments — A and B — have pitted many residents in Prosper and in McKinney against each other.

That’s because the expansion project means the difference between building the western edge of the bypass in Collin County either in Prosper or McKinney.

Although residents in the area agree that U.S. 380 needs to be improved, those who live in McKinney’s Tucker Hill and Stonebridge Ranch neighborhoods say they would be negatively impacted by segment A. Meanwhile, segment B has received strong pushback from Prosper residents.

The expansion of U.S. 380 through segment A would displace two homes and 17 businesses in McKinney, impacting residents whose homes are close to the highway in Tucker Hill and Stonebridge Ranch. Segment B would displace five homes and no businesses in Prosper but would cut through multiple residential developments that are either planned or under construction.

Officials in McKinney and Prosper have each mounted public relations campaigns to fight against the less-desired options, and residents in both areas have organized rallies and neighborhood meetings to do the same.

Since it started its feasibility study for the project in 2017, the Texas Department of Transportation has received more than 18,000 comments — “one of the largest number of comments for any public involvement project in the Dallas district,” according to the state highway authority. That figure does not include the number of responses TxDOT has received for the environmental impact study.

Thursday is the last day for people to weigh in on TxDOT’s environmental impact study. TxDOT spokeswoman Madison Schein has said the agency is expected to make a decision on the preferred route in early 2023, when residents will again be able to submit public comments.

‘Years of stress’

Both options propose expanding U.S. 380 from its current six lanes into eight with two service roads on each side, according to the state highway authority.

In addition to widening the portion of the highway that is north of the Stonebridge Ranch and south of Tucker Hill neighborhoods in McKinney, the option would also require TxDOT to build a new bypass on the east side of Tucker Hill — between North Custer Road and North Lake Forest Drive. Stonebridge Academy, a preschool, the Applebee Montessori Academy and Two McKinney ISD elementary schools in — Wilmeth and McClure — are also located near U.S. 380.

Segment A would require 5.5 miles of construction east of North Custer Road and is estimated to cost $98.8 million more than segment B.

About half of the 17 businesses that would be displaced with segment A would be within Prosper, and the rest are in McKinney, its neighbor to the southeast.

Kim Carmichael, who has lived in Tucker Hill for seven years, said she has been organizing the neighborhood’s residents against segment A. Over the years she has filled a file cabinet full of documents related to the matter. Although she is appreciative of TxDOT’s efforts to meet with residents, Carmichael said she thinks the state agency has taken too long to decide a preferred route.

“It has been years of stress,” she said. “I wish [TxDOT] would have made a decision a long time ago.”

She and other Tucker Hill residents are against option A because of multiple factors, she said, including safety concerns related to construction, noise and pollution. She also said that route would affect the ability to enter and exit the neighborhood, which raises concerns about access for emergency response vehicles.

In a written statement, Schein, of TxDOT, said “options to streamline access and align connecting streets in the Tucker Hill area were explored in the feasibility study phase,” and added that TxDOT is continuing its analysis, which will include studying potential routes in and out of the neighborhood.

Much of the debate has remained civil, but some of the rhetoric has been personal.

In one screen capture of a Facebook comment that was shared with The Dallas Morning News, a user suggested that students from Tucker Hill, which is zoned in Prosper ISD, be barred from going to those district’s schools because of the neighborhood’s support for segment B.

Joan Stuckmann, a resident of Stonebridge Ranch, which is south of the proposed segment A, has also been trying to inform people in her neighborhood about the potential negative impacts of the proposed route.

She lamented how the project has seemingly pitted residents in McKinney and Prosper against each other. Stuckmann said she avoids the topic when speaking to friends who are Prosper residents to preserve that relationship.

“It’s terrible, you know?” she said. “We’ve been through so much these last few years, and I was feeling really good that we were starting to get back to normal a little bit.”

’A mess’

Segment B would snake west of North Custer Road and require 4.5 miles of construction, according to TxDOT projections. It would cut through a residential development called Ladera Prosper, which is currently under construction and designed as a neighborhood for people who are 55 years or older.

John Delin, the owner of Roanoke, Texas-based Integrity Group that is heading the Prosper project, said the first homes for the neighborhood are expected to be built later this year. He said the company would look for ways to fight this plan legally if TxDOT moves forward with the option.

“Which … is not something we want to do; that’s not our forte,” he said. “We prefer to build our community out. It’s highly needed.”

Owners of ManeGait, an equine therapy center, have said that they would move if TxDOT chooses segment B, despite TxDOT’s position that the new bypass would “not significantly impact” the organization’s sprawling property off North Custer Road. The highway authority is currently reaching out to study impacts to other equine therapy services that are close to major roadways.

Prosper ISD has said that it opposes the option because of a new high school currently being built on County Road. According to the most recent reports from the school district, the high school is about 42% complete. Segment B would be about 1,600 feet away from the school’s property line, according to current TxDOT projections.

The segment has also received pushback because it would require that a new road be built close to Founders Classical Academy in Prosper, a charter school at the intersection of North Custer and County roads.

Dawn Ventre, who lives on the border of Prosper and McKinney, said her daughter is currently in kindergarten at the academy and is expecting to send her son to the school in two years. She said she strongly opposes option B because of the health issues that a major roadway could have on students, but also because of literature she has read regarding its impacts on student performance.

Ventre said she thinks TxDOT should have done a better job of planning for growth, adding that the agency’s indecisiveness has “created a mess.”

“The state has pinned neighbor against neighbor, neighborhood against neighborhood,” she said. “And now they’re trying to pin this highway onto students; that’s not right.”

Chris and Kathryn Keating have lived in Prosper for about six years in a neighborhood called Whitley Place, which is located near where a new bypass would be built under segment B. The couple attended a town rally last week to voice their opposition.

“It would definitely affect the quality of life we expected when we moved out to the area,” Chris Keating said.

Keating, who has friends who live in McKinney, said he thinks the two options have sowed a lot of misunderstanding around Prosper residents’ opposition to segment B.

“Obviously people in McKinney don’t want a highway in their backyard just like we don’t either,” he said.

As for inflammatory comments on social media, such as the one threatening a petition to prevent children in McKinney from attending Prosper ISD schools, the couple said they are “ridiculous” and “out of line.”

“I think that’s the state of our nation right now,” Kathryn Keating said. “Anybody is going to be a keyboard warrior and spew out nonsense, and that’s what that is.”