Why is Texas allowed to be special and unique in the way they build freeways? especially in regards to their frontage roads. aren't federal DOT standards somewhat binding? its also weird that they're going the other direction of many states that are separating ramps from local roads. is it because they would make a stink if required to?
Why not? Why force Texas to avoid frontage roads when that design is superior to what is found in most other states?
Quote from: sernum on December 30, 2021, 01:48:49 PM
Why is Texas allowed to be special and unique in the way they build freeways? especially in regards to their frontage roads. aren't federal DOT standards somewhat binding? its also weird that they're going the other direction of many states that are separating ramps from local roads. is it because they would make a stink if required to?
I don't understand the issue. They decide to spend their money this way. They aren't building dangerously or haphazardly. I suppose they may be encouraging sprawl, but that's the only possible drawback I see here.
There is no federal DOT standard prohibiting frontage roads. In fact, there are plenty of places outside Texas (Oklahoma City and parts of Wichita, for example) that use Texas-style frontage roads. The only thing that makes Texas frontage roads special is that they are far more prolific than elsewhere, appearing even in rural areas.
In my opinion, the most compelling argument against frontage roads is that the land-use patterns that frontage roads tend to encourage are...not great. But that has nothing to do with transportation policy at all, so USDOT should probably leave determining when frontage roads are appropriate to TxDOT and the local zoning boards and what have you.
Now, if you want to complain about Texas flouting federal rules, look at their signage!
I dont have a problem with the concept of frontage roads, but being on every freeway seems like overkill, like on a rural interstate. secondly isn't it substandard to have interstate/freeway ramps be intertwined with local roads?
I can't think of how frontage roads are substandard. I believe Texas avoids RIROs, which are considered substandard.
I'm personally not a fan of the one-way orientation of many of the Texas Interstate frontage roads in small cities or rural areas but they certainly aren't substandard.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 30, 2021, 03:00:31 PM
There is no federal DOT standard prohibiting frontage roads. In fact, there are plenty of places outside Texas (Oklahoma City and parts of Wichita, for example) that use Texas-style frontage roads. The only thing that makes Texas frontage roads special is that they are far more prolific than elsewhere, appearing even in rural areas.
In fact, I like to think Texas stole the idea from Greater Little Rock, specifically I-30 and US 67-167 (soon to be I-57).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 30, 2021, 08:47:51 PM
I'm personally not a fan of the one-way orientation of many of the Texas Interstate frontage roads in small cities or rural areas but they certainly aren't substandard.
A two way frontage road is fine, but may result in crashes with exit ramp or entrance ramp traffic. A one way road requires traffic to be on the innermost lane after an exit or to enter the freeway, which I think will reduce accidents. What I get confused about is why in some cities there is an entrance ramp before an overpass/underpass and an exit afterwards.
Quote from: Thegeet on December 30, 2021, 09:44:15 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 30, 2021, 08:47:51 PM
I'm personally not a fan of the one-way orientation of many of the Texas Interstate frontage roads in small cities or rural areas but they certainly aren't substandard.
A two way frontage road is fine, but may result in crashes with exit ramp or entrance ramp traffic. A one way road requires traffic to be on the innermost lane after an exit or to enter the freeway, which I think will reduce accidents. What I get confused about is why in some cities there is an entrance ramp before an overpass/underpass and an exit afterwards.
I get all that and don't dispute the reasoning. All the same it's annoying as an outsider having to lap one way for a long distance on the side of the freeway to find an overpass to go the other way.
Quote from: sernumI dont have a problem with the concept of frontage roads, but being on every freeway seems like overkill, like on a rural interstate. secondly isn't it substandard to have interstate/freeway ramps be intertwined with local roads?
Frontage roads along Interstates in rural areas of Texas are often very necessary. The frontage roads preserve access to ranch land, oil fields and various residential or commercial properties. Some of those properties existed prior to the highway being upgraded into an Interstate.
Without continuous frontage roads you get nonsense like all the improvised gravel driveways and even full-blown at-grade surface intersections along parts of I-10 in West Texas. That sucks. So do those at-grade intersections along I-40 in the Panhandle just East of the NM border.
I don't understand the comment about freeway ramps being "intertwined with local roads." Interstates with
Texas style frontage roads typically have slip ramps that run only between the main lanes of the Interstate and the adjacent frontage road. Over the years Texas (and other states) have changed the configuration of where on or off slip-ramps are placed. In the past an Interstate off ramp would connect to a frontage road just prior to a surface street intersection. Now they're placing the off ramps after the intersections to reduce weaving conflicts. In more busy urban areas TX DOT will sometimes spend extra and build "braided" ramps.
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI'm personally not a fan of the one-way orientation of many of the Texas Interstate frontage roads in small cities or rural areas but they certainly aren't substandard.
I don't mind the one way orientation of Texas-style frontage roads. I guess it could sort of stink for businesses built next to the frontage road. One bright side is Texas often includes
Texas U-Turns at many intersections, allowing frontage road traffic to whip around to the other side of the freeway without being stuck in the traffic signals.
Quote from: Rothman on December 30, 2021, 08:45:52 PM
I can't think of how frontage roads are substandard. I believe Texas avoids RIROs, which are considered substandard.
I never said front roads were substandard, I only said their usage seems overdone all over Texas as an automatic part of freeway construction.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2021, 10:13:34 PM
Quote from: sernumI dont have a problem with the concept of frontage roads, but being on every freeway seems like overkill, like on a rural interstate. secondly isn't it substandard to have interstate/freeway ramps be intertwined with local roads?
Frontage roads along Interstates in rural areas of Texas are often very necessary. The frontage roads preserve access to ranch land, oil fields and various residential or commercial properties. Some of those properties existed prior to the highway being upgraded into an Interstate.
Without continuous frontage roads you get nonsense like all the improvised gravel driveways and even full-blown at-grade surface intersections along parts of I-10 in West Texas. That sucks. So do those at-grade intersections along I-40 in the Panhandle just East of the NM border.
I don't understand the comment about freeway ramps being "intertwined with local roads." Interstates with Texas style frontage roads typically have slip ramps that run only between the main lanes of the Interstate and the adjacent frontage road. Over the years Texas (and other states) have changed the configuration of where on or off slip-ramps are placed. In the past an Interstate off ramp would connect to a frontage road just prior to a surface street intersection. Now they're placing the off ramps after the intersections to reduce weaving conflicts. In more busy urban areas TX DOT will sometimes spend extra and build "braided" ramps.
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI'm personally not a fan of the one-way orientation of many of the Texas Interstate frontage roads in small cities or rural areas but they certainly aren't substandard.
I don't mind the one way orientation of Texas-style frontage roads. I guess it could sort of stink for businesses built next to the frontage road. One bright side is Texas often includes Texas U-Turns at many intersections, allowing frontage road traffic to whip around to the other side of the freeway without being stuck in the traffic signals.
exactly my point though, dont modern standards dictate that ramps must be actual separated ramps and not slip ramps on to a road that runs beside the highway? now intersections on the interstate are not what I advocate for, but in those cases why not just build or reuse a road only for those who do get cut off with a new freeway? other states dont seem to have such an issue here .
No, they don't.
Easy to build ramps to ordinary streets perhaps?
Quote from: sernum on December 30, 2021, 11:09:01 PMNow intersections on the interstate are not what I advocate for, but in those cases why not just build or reuse a road only for those who do get cut off with a new freeway?
Dewitt C. Greer, who served as head of the Texas Highway Department from 1940 to 1967, is generally described as the father of Texas frontage roads. They were seen as offering the following advantages:
* Facilitating phased construction, since frontage roads can be built first when land is acquired for a new freeway, and then mainlanes can be built later when traffic warrants (example: SH 288 in Brazoria County (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.2482043,-95.4532948,3a,75y,341.17h,83.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT9ey2uWNbcxpj3D_7SIOOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192))
* Promoting urban development by providing highway access while maintaining full access control on freeway mainlanes (this can lead to ribbon development, a form of sprawl, in areas with weak land-use controls, one example being I-35 between Austin and San Antonio (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7838261,-98.0322006,347m/data=!3m1!1e3))
* Obtaining landowner buy-in to freeway construction
* Providing facilities for local traffic movement and thus allowing substitution of flat intersections for overpasses at low-volume crossings (until the federal government clamped down and required Greer's department to build what were derisively called "jackrabbit overpasses")
It is often said that Texas has frontage roads because Texas law requires that landowners have access to roads abutting their properties, as if this were not also true in other states. I have long been skeptical that statute law or court precedent in Texas is unusual in this regard: as a general rule, access must be provided unless the highway agency buys access rights (resorting to eminent domain in the case of reluctant landowners). What is often contested, and ultimately comes down to a matter of judicial interpretation, is how
direct and
convenient the access must be. In states like California and Kansas, there are court precedents that establish it is acceptable to leave landowners with only indirect access to a freeway running along their properties. Regardless of the stand the courts in Texas typically take on this issue, however, the frontage roads do ease land acquisition problems because there is no question (legally speaking) that a frontage road constitutes direct access. The primary tradeoff consists of higher costs for construction and maintenance.
About 20 years ago, TxDOT considered amending its roadway design manual so that frontage roads would no longer be built by default, and had to backtrack after an outcry.
As a general rule, frontage roads work well on freeways that have been built in the past 30 years or so, since geometric design criteria are now tougher, one-way operation is the norm, and X-ramps (the technical term for placing the on-ramp before the crossroad and the off-ramp after) are used much more extensively to prevent swooping. However, Texas still has a vast mileage designed to looser standards.
I think the key is that the service road traffic in Texas YIELDS to the traffic exiting the mainlanes.
Quote from: Thegeet on December 30, 2021, 09:44:15 PMWhat I get confused about is why in some cities there is an entrance ramp before an overpass/underpass and an exit afterwards.
In Huntsville, for instance. It's so that there'll be plenty of room between the ramps and the signalized intersections for traffic to make its way into the desired lane instead of having a free-for-all with traffic cutting diagonally leftward and rightward across the roadway. I think this is called an X pattern, and I consider it superior. I'd be genuinely surprised if it's not consistently and significantly safer.
EDIT: Oooh, just saw this. Is "swooping" a technical term? :clap:
Quote from: J N WinklerAs a general rule, frontage roads work well on freeways that have been built in the past 30 years or so, since geometric design criteria are now tougher, one-way operation is the norm, and X-ramps (the technical term for placing the on-ramp before the crossroad and the off-ramp after) are used much more extensively to prevent swooping. However, Texas still has a vast mileage designed to looser standards.
What I want to know is how the funding split between federal, state, and other works. It's an obvious question that's especially fresh in my mind after I recently read that history of the Interstate system in Indiana. There, battles royale were fought over individual grade separations versus minimal sections of frontage road for minor roads severed by the Interstate, not to mention interchanges where the warrants were dubious or the spacing with other interchanges too close. often, these relatively minor enhancements were never built. In much of Texas, the routine provision of frontage roads makes most of this type of thing a moot point, though at what elsewhere would be regarded as prohibitive expense.
I have to assume that Texas and maybe its localities paid and still pay for all of these frontage roads except in cases where they're an integral element of the design, such as where pre-Interstate US 81 trenched through various small towns (https://goo.gl/maps/zAu1y3nRgauiy9eN8) (though that'd be difficult to tease out). If not, non-Texan taxpayers got royally screwed.
Quote from: Tom958 on December 31, 2021, 06:59:05 AM
What I want to know is how the funding split between federal, state, and other works. It's an obvious question that's especially fresh in my mind after I recently read that history of the Interstate system in Indiana. There, battles royale were fought over individual grade separations versus minimal sections of frontage road for minor roads severed by the Interstate, not to mention interchanges where the warrants were dubious or the spacing with other interchanges too close. often, these relatively minor enhancements were never built. In much of Texas, the routine provision of frontage roads makes most of this type of thing a moot point, though at what elsewhere would be regarded as prohibitive expense.
I have to assume that Texas and maybe its localities paid and still pay for all of these frontage roads except in cases where they're an integral element of the design, such as where pre-Interstate US 81 trenched through various small towns (https://goo.gl/maps/zAu1y3nRgauiy9eN8) (though that'd be difficult to tease out). If not, non-Texan taxpayers got royally screwed.
Egads. There is no way for non-Texan taxpayers to be "royally screwed" by the way Texas decides to spend its federal dollars, which are apportioned to Texas per calculations in the most recent federal transportation bill just like any other state. The apportionments do not change based on what the funds are used for.
For a while there, federal apportionments were just based upon previous bills. I think you have to go all the way back to SAFETEA-LU to where apportioments were actually based upon updated system data.
That said, have to say that I've been more out of the loop with the IIJA, but I could look up how they did it this time around...when I have the time. Apportionments were established on December 14th for FFY 2022 by FHWA...
Texas also has a lot of 4 lane undivided. They did studies that showed they are safer than 2 lanes. . They seem like a good alternative for rural arterials Inn the 3 to 9000 range.
I live Inn a state that used to be innovative but lost it so I think we should praise some innovation.
Quote from: Rothman on December 31, 2021, 08:19:37 AM
Quote from: Tom958 on December 31, 2021, 06:59:05 AM
What I want to know is how the funding split between federal, state, and other works. It's an obvious question that's especially fresh in my mind after I recently read that history of the Interstate system in Indiana. There, battles royale were fought over individual grade separations versus minimal sections of frontage road for minor roads severed by the Interstate, not to mention interchanges where the warrants were dubious or the spacing with other interchanges too close. often, these relatively minor enhancements were never built. In much of Texas, the routine provision of frontage roads makes most of this type of thing a moot point, though at what elsewhere would be regarded as prohibitive expense.
I have to assume that Texas and maybe its localities paid and still pay for all of these frontage roads except in cases where they're an integral element of the design, such as where pre-Interstate US 81 trenched through various small towns (https://goo.gl/maps/zAu1y3nRgauiy9eN8) (though that'd be difficult to tease out). If not, non-Texan taxpayers got royally screwed.
Egads. There is no way for non-Texan taxpayers to be "royally screwed" by the way Texas decides to spend its federal dollars, which are apportioned to Texas per calculations in the most recent federal transportation bill just like any other state. The apportionments do not change based on what the funds are used for.
For a while there, federal apportionments were just based upon previous bills. I think you have to go all the way back to SAFETEA-LU to where apportioments were actually based upon updated system data.
That said, have to say that I've been more out of the loop with the IIJA, but I could look up how they did it this time around...when I have the time. Apportionments were established on December 14th for FFY 2022 by FHWA...
I wasn't talking about last month. I was talking about decades ago when the Interstate system and many of those frontage roads were built initially, as my first paragraph ought to have made clear. In addition to the items I mentioned, in this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=30753.0) I mentioned the initial scoping and later revision of the eastern I-70-I-465 interchange:
Quote...At the time the interchange was originally planned, two higher-type interchanges (a full directional and a figure eight), which would not have had a weaving problem, were considered and right of way had been purchased for a full directional interchange. However, the Bureau of Public Roads found that the design year volumes did not warrant the higher cost interchanges.
It seems incongruous that the federal authorities would intervene in such matters in Indiana, yet rubber stamp many miles of not-strictly-necessary frontage roads in Texas.
Based upon what I've read recently and over the years, I'd guess that the feds funded 90% of the cost of a reasonably-scoped new Interstate highway, with the state and/or localities funding extras such as continuous frontage roads, extra-wide medians, and unwarranted interchanges and grade separations. If so, great. If not, I see that as a problem.
Do Texas freeways have fewer noise walls due to their extensive frontage road systems? Some freeways are lined with commercial development, which acts like an acoustic buffer for residential areas behind them.
Dallas uses frontage roads less than Houston or San Antonio. For example most of IH-635 and IH-20 lacked frontage roads in their original construction. Of course, omitting frontage roads reduces costs, and this is one reason why DFW was able to build more centerline miles than Houston. See link http://dfwfreeways.com/images/book/ChPlanning/02_planning_controversy_cancellations-059.jpg (http://dfwfreeways.com/images/book/ChPlanning/02_planning_controversy_cancellations-059.jpg)
Frontage roads are now being added where they were omitted. The $1.7 billion LBJ East project includes continuous frontage roads.
Earlier this month, bids were opened with the low bid of $84 million to add frontage roads to a section of IH-20 in south Dallas. This project will feature high-flying frontage roads which go over the interchange at US 67. This job illustrates the cost of frontage roads, especially when there is a complication like an interchange which needs to be crossed.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/12023201.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/12023201.htm)
County: DALLAS Let Date: 12/02/21
Type: CONSTRUCT FRONTAGE ROADS Seq No: 3201
Time: 0 X Project ID: F 2022(153)
Highway: IH 20 Contract #: 12213201
Length: 2.860 CCSJ: 2374-04-085
Limits:
From: WEST OF COCKRELL HILL RD Check: $100,000
To: HAMPTON RD Misc Cost:
Estimate $77,716,896.85 % Over/Under Company
Bidder 1 $84,674,372.56 +8.95% AUSTIN BRIDGE & ROAD SERVICES, LP
Bidder 2 $85,403,067.06 +9.89% WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 3 $89,237,309.74 +14.82% SEMA CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 4 $89,661,824.96 +15.37% FLUOR HEAVY CIVIL, LLC
Bidder 5 $93,899,427.38 +20.82% ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 6 $94,970,223.68 +22.20% FLATIRON CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
Quote from: Chris on December 31, 2021, 11:30:33 AM
Do Texas freeways have fewer noise walls due to their extensive frontage road systems? Some freeways are lined with commercial development, which acts like an acoustic buffer for residential areas behind them.
I believe so. I think that noise walls are only used for households, and businesses don't usually request them.
Quote from: sernum
I never said front roads were substandard, I only said their usage seems overdone all over Texas as an automatic part of freeway construction.
I would like to point out that Texas doesn't build feeder roads as an absolute given on new projects. Just look at the new rural parts of the Grand Parkway and the Aggie Expressway on the NW side of Houston. They don't have feeders, and they were built within the last 5 years. If the project is on new terrain and there are no houses/ranches/etc. that need access, they won't necessarily use them. There may still be Texas U-turns, however.
And in response to
Max, the one-way feeders really aren't a problem if you know how to use them. In fact, I regard them as safer and more intuitive than other alternatives in certain scenarios. Take this scenario at the intersection of TX 288 and FM 518 in Pearland, TX (imagery is a bit outdated, as construction is finished on this section now, and I had to turn off labels, so bear with me here):
(https://imgur.com/5Dr7m55.jpg)
Let's say I just finished shopping at HEB and I want to go north on 288 (the freeway in the picture). I can either go out the front way onto FM-518 (the primary E-W road) and make 2 left turns at busy intersections where I might run the risk of getting T-boned (plus I'll have to wait a while because the lights are extremely busy), or I can go out the back way, turn south onto the frontage road, and make a U-turn before the light to get onto the freeway NB. If I go the latter route, it is a lot safer, as I do not cross any opposing traffic at all, plus it is more efficient, as I do not have to wait at any lights.
Quote from: Tom958 on December 31, 2021, 05:44:26 AMEDIT: Oooh, just saw this. Is "swooping" a technical term? :clap:
I have seen it used as such, to describe what in Britain are informally called "tiger-tail markings" (https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3553771,-2.0582065,3a,75y,252.63h,73.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW3eVlA-fBLYIUbVV6UyxAg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) and have a similar purpose of preventing changes across multiple lanes.
Quote from: Tom958 on December 31, 2021, 11:07:09 AMBased upon what I've read recently and over the years, I'd guess that the feds funded 90% of the cost of a reasonably-scoped new freeway, with the state and/or localities funding extras such as continuous frontage roads, extra-wide medians, and unwarranted interchanges and grade separations. If so, great. If not, I see that as a problem.
My understanding is that the 90% federal/10% state Interstate Construction split did apply to what BPR/FHWA deemed eligible expenses for Interstates. In the early 1960's in California, Division of Highways engineers wanted to provide guardrails and other roadside safety hardware on a more generous basis than was then called for in national standards, so they had to keep up what was described as "sales pressure" on their BPR colleagues to fund them.
This said, I don't know what stance BPR/FHWA took on frontage roads specifically. It is also possible that they were more readily funded in Texas than they would have been in other states, due to advocacy from the state and regional offices. (In the state offices especially, the state DOT is very close while Washington is very far away.)
Quote from: ThegeetI believe so. I think that noise walls are only used for households, and businesses don't usually request them.
Yeah, it would be pathologically stupid for any commercial business next to an Interstate frontage road to want a sound wall built, blocking out the view of the Interstate. A commercial business brick and mortar store front is an extremely important marketing tool. If the on premise signage is visible to passing Interstate traffic that is a very extreme win.
Quote from: CoreySamsonI would like to point out that Texas doesn't build feeder roads as an absolute given on new projects. Just look at the new rural parts of the Grand Parkway and the Aggie Expressway on the NW side of Houston. They don't have feeders, and they were built within the last 5 years. If the project is on new terrain and there are no houses/ranches/etc. that need access, they won't necessarily use them. There may still be Texas U-turns, however.
A new toll road going through terrain with little to no development would be more likely to ditch the frontage roads.
On the other hand, the toll road authorities probably want to make it as convenient as possible for motorists to enter a new turnpike. Everything is going to cash-less tolling, which means no toll booths. That makes it easier to build toll roads in freeway-like design, just with tag readers at every ramp.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 31, 2021, 02:06:41 PM
Quote from: Tom958 on December 31, 2021, 05:44:26 AMEDIT: Oooh, just saw this. Is "swooping" a technical term? :clap:
I have seen it used as such, to describe what in Britain are informally called "tiger-tail markings" (https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3553771,-2.0582065,3a,75y,252.63h,73.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW3eVlA-fBLYIUbVV6UyxAg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) and have a similar purpose of preventing changes across multiple lanes.
Quote from: Tom958 on December 31, 2021, 11:07:09 AMBased upon what I've read recently and over the years, I'd guess that the feds funded 90% of the cost of a reasonably-scoped new freeway, with the state and/or localities funding extras such as continuous frontage roads, extra-wide medians, and unwarranted interchanges and grade separations. If so, great. If not, I see that as a problem.
My understanding is that the 90% federal/10% state Interstate Construction split did apply to what BPR/FHWA deemed eligible expenses for Interstates. In the early 1960's in California, Division of Highways engineers wanted to provide guardrails and other roadside safety hardware on a more generous basis than was then called for in national standards, so they had to keep up what was described as "sales pressure" on their BPR colleagues to fund them.
This said, I don't know what stance BPR/FHWA took on frontage roads specifically. It is also possible that they were more readily funded in Texas than they would have been in other states, due to advocacy from the state and regional offices. (In the state offices especially, the state DOT is very close while Washington is very far away.)
I can't imagine frontage roads being eligible for 90/10. Their functional class alone would be disqualifying.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 31, 2021, 08:27:44 PM
Quote from: ThegeetI believe so. I think that noise walls are only used for households, and businesses don't usually request them.
Yeah, it would be pathologically stupid for any commercial business next to an Interstate frontage road to want a sound wall built, blocking out the view of the Interstate. A commercial business brick and mortar store front is an extremely important marketing tool. If the on premise signage is visible to passing Interstate traffic that is a very extreme win.
Quote from: CoreySamsonI would like to point out that Texas doesn't build feeder roads as an absolute given on new projects. Just look at the new rural parts of the Grand Parkway and the Aggie Expressway on the NW side of Houston. They don't have feeders, and they were built within the last 5 years. If the project is on new terrain and there are no houses/ranches/etc. that need access, they won't necessarily use them. There may still be Texas U-turns, however.
A new toll road going through terrain with little to no development would be more likely to ditch the frontage roads.
On the other hand, the toll road authorities probably want to make it as convenient as possible for motorists to enter a new turnpike. Everything is going to cash-less tolling, which means no toll booths. That makes it easier to build toll roads in freeway-like design, just with tag readers at every ramp.
I can tell you that the future Dallas North Tollway extension will have frontage roads its entire length. They're building them as we speak.
Tbh, frontage roads do serve quite well as a relief road for traffic, should the main lanes be backed up on under construction.
Quote from: Road HogI can tell you that the future Dallas North Tollway extension will have frontage roads its entire length. They're building them as we speak.
The frontage roads along extensions of the DNT are most definitely needed. There currently isn't a lot of development North of US-380. But that will quickly change, just like so many other areas North of Dallas-Fort Worth in the past 30 years. I remember in the early 1990's there was hardly anything North of The Colony and Frisco was itty bitty. Now it's all blown up like mad.
TX DOT really goofed up not doing the frontage road thing with US-380 back in the 1990's like how they widened TX-121 from Lewisville to McKinney. TX-114 between US-287 and I-35W is threatening to turn into another missed opportunity. 100% freeway conversion of that segment needs to happen ASAP due to the rapid development North of Fort Worth.
Toll roads that run across entire states and have significant distances between exits don't need frontage roads. I-44 in Oklahoma is one example. The Pennsylvania Turnpike or Florida Turnpike also count. But it is now easier to add more exits since toll booths no longer have to be manned. The interchanges can be standard diamonds rather than things like trumpet designs.
Quote from: Thegeet on December 31, 2021, 12:59:34 PM
Quote from: Chris on December 31, 2021, 11:30:33 AM
Do Texas freeways have fewer noise walls due to their extensive frontage road systems? Some freeways are lined with commercial development, which acts like an acoustic buffer for residential areas behind them.
I believe so. I think that noise walls are only used for households, and businesses don't usually request them.
Noise policy is based on federal noise guidelines. Unless it is a critical place like hospitals, commercial property like industrial and retail is excepted except for offices, restaurants and bars, and a few other uses. Eligible commercial properties have a higher noise threshold than residential, and it is measured and modeled outside rather than the building interior of the "receptor" property. Adding a frontage road could increase or decrease the noise reaching a property due to several factors like elevation differences, distance from the main lanes and the frontage road lanes to the receptor, and the existing and projected traffic on each. In addition, property owners have some veto power regarding noise wall installations due to the "viewpoints solicitation" process.
In practice, noise barriers on a frontage road with numerous entrances would likely be infeasible due to the number of openings rendering it ineffective. And if the businesses along the frontage road are commercial entities receiving customers or industrial uses and not office space, they are not counted as part of the noise mitigation need.
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 31, 2021, 01:38:05 PM
I would like to point out that Texas doesn't build feeder roads as an absolute given on new projects. Just look at the new rural parts of the Grand Parkway and the Aggie Expressway on the NW side of Houston. They don't have feeders, and they were built within the last 5 years. If the project is on new terrain and there are no houses/ranches/etc. that need access, they won't necessarily use them. There may still be Texas U-turns, however.
Yes, there are no frontage roads (feeders as the Houstonians call them)on these new roads. The question is did they account for them in the initial ROW? The Bill Ratliff Freeway in Mount Pleasant (US-271) was built as freeway mainlanes but the ROW was acquired with the ability to finish through frontage roads.
For those looking to delve further into provision of frontage roads in Texas, these may be of interest:
Kara M. Kockelman et al., Frontage Roads in Texas: A Comprehensive Assessment (https://ctr.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubs/1873_2.pdf) (FHWA/TX-01873-2) (2001):
"Moreover, the roadway geometry associated with frontage roads in other states was in many cases quite different from typical Texas designs. Frontage roads where development was allowed to occur on both sides of the roadway was a design characteristic shared by several states, generous ramp-to-signal distances were required by several policy guidelines, and development adjacent to the ramp-frontage-road interface to prevent dangerous weaving maneuvers was generally much more restricted than in Texas. While not every strategy given by a state DOT will apply to Texas, new and rehabilitated roadways within Texas may achieve significant operational and safety advantages by utilizing some of the techniques proven successful in other areas of the United States."
"The analyses presented here represent avenues of study not previously attempted. The momentum of frontage-road construction in the state of Texas dates back to before construction of the interstate highway system, and many may argue that it gave rise to undesirable roadway operations and land development within the state. It is hoped that these results, in addition to efforts by other researchers, will assist in constructing a solid, formal policy for Texas to follow in providing access along its new and existing freeways in the decades to come."
Charles Pinnell and Paul R. Tutt, "Evaluation of Frontage Roads as an Urban Freeway Design Element" (https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/hrr/1963/9/9-001.pdf), Highway Research Record 9 (1963):
"In view of the effect that the presence or absence of frontage roads has on the cost of right-of-way, the construction of a frontage road system will usually result in a lesser overall cost for the entire facility."
The contrast in perspectives tells its own story--Pinnell and Tutt, writing during the era of first construction of the Interstates, essentially argue that savings in access rights at least reimburse the cost of constructing frontage roads. Kockelman et al. are more concerned with the operational and cost issues of managing a mature system, and essentially recommend that frontage roads be subject to some form of access management if they are provided at all. (2001 was also the year the Texas Transportation Commission passed Minute Order 108544, directing abandonment of the policy of building frontage roads by default.)
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 31, 2021, 01:38:05 PM
https://imgur.com/5Dr7m55.jpg
Let's say I just finished shopping at HEB and I want to go north on 288 (the freeway in the picture). I can either go out the front way onto FM-518 (the primary E-W road) and make 2 left turns at busy intersections where I might run the risk of getting T-boned (plus I'll have to wait a while because the lights are extremely busy), or I can go out the back way, turn south onto the frontage road, and make a U-turn before the light to get onto the freeway NB. If I go the latter route, it is a lot safer, as I do not cross any opposing traffic at all, plus it is more efficient, as I do not have to wait at any lights.
This is often cited as a benefit of frontage roads and I would agree if you're a local who knows the local roadway network well. But a long distance traveler just passing through should not have to study a map just to figure out how to get back on the highway without potentially going miles out of the way. Being able to go out the back entrance behind the HEB doesn't help if you don't know it exists. The newer practice of putting offramps much farther back from the intersecting road also makes it much harder to find cheap gas if you're someone like me who doesn't use their phone while driving. By the time you can see the gas station sign with the price, you've already passed the offramp.
There have been times where I have found the U-turns greatly beneficial, but frontage road setups have also tripped me up multiple times. As an example, about a month ago I stayed a night at a hotel off I-40 on the west side of Soncy Rd in Amarillo, here: https://goo.gl/maps/SVfEZBxGL6L78Mmq5
The 'correct' way to get to I-40 eastbound would have been to turn left (away from the interstate!) onto Soncy Rd's frontage road, then U-turn onto the main lanes at a crossover, then turn left onto I-40's frontage road. But I hadn't looked at this on the map before getting moving, and I couldn't see the crossover to my left due to a complete lack of any street lighting (this was before sunrise), and so I turned right onto Soncy's frontage road toward the visible I-40 overpass. This meant I was then forced to turn right onto the westbound I-40 frontage road and search for a U-turn, which I almost missed at Helium Rd because there is no street lighting and not a single sign indicating this is an actual street you can turn left onto: https://goo.gl/maps/XcHVnKtHAHbNqMf39
tl;dr I think frontage roads are great and useful for locals but make navigating an urban area and/or finding services on a long trip much more complicated for through travelers.
Texas U-Turns on freeway/toll road frontage roads are great. I think they're usually signed clearly enough to make them reasonably easy to understand to out of state motorists. I wasn't confused the first times I encountered them many years ago. Instead, my reaction was, "this is pretty nice."
The real problem is Texas U-Turns aren't used more often along frontage roads in other states.
Texas isn't devoid of poorly signed and/or confusing ramp configurations. One example I particularly dislike is the entrance to Westbound I-635 at Webb Chapel Road. The first on-ramp immediately West of Webb Chapel is very deceiving. When you enter the ramp the tendency is to stay left because you expect the ramp to immediately let you enter I-635. Nope. The first thing that happens is you reach a "Y" split, with the left lane actually being a ramp for I-35E Northbound express lanes. Not WB I-635. The other ramp is signed like an exit for Denton Drive and Harry Hines Blvd. There is no mention of I-635 West for that lane, but that's the lane you must use to reach I-635. All that lane does is hop you over the Josey Lane intersection right back down to the WB frontage road. Then you finally get an entrance ramp to WB I-635. The very least thing TX DOT could do is sign those damned ramps better.
BTW, it's a pretty bad thing if you goof up and take the wrong turn to I-35E North going into Farmer's Branch, Carrolton, etc. Valwood Parkway is the first place where you can turn around to back-track to I-635. Farther North I-35E is configured with 11' wide lanes rather than the normal 12' width. That one foot difference in lane width is a big problem. Rush hour traffic is bad enough in Dallas, but in that area it feels like you're going to trade paint with other vehicles at any second. I won't go that way under the current setup. It's going to be several years before they get the next upgrade to I-35E done, which possibly, maybe restore the lanes back to normal 12' width. Unfortunately some minds at TX DOT are warming up to the idea of making 11' lane widths a more common thing.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 03, 2022, 01:18:45 AMThe contrast in perspectives tells its own story--Pinnell and Tutt, writing during the era of first construction of the Interstates, essentially argue that savings in access rights at least reimburse the cost of constructing frontage roads. Kockelman et al. are more concerned with the operational and cost issues of managing a mature system, and essentially recommend that frontage roads be subject to some form of access management if they are provided at all. (2001 was also the year the Texas Transportation Commission passed Minute Order 108544, directing abandonment of the policy of building frontage roads by default.)
Honestly, it never occurred to me that frontage roads could save more money than they cost. If that was the case, then it'd be perfectly sensible for the Feds to fund them, especially if deals were made for the state or localities to maintain them. It's conceivable that eventually a strong enough relationship was established between the costs of frontage roads and saving on rights-of-way to justify only a cursory review. Now I'm wondering to what degree the ability of Texas landowners to get more money out of the government than landowners in other states is the root of Texas' seeming enthrallment with frontage roads.
I also think that we've mostly answered the question in the OP, and that the question was better than it appeared upon first view. I might go back and answer it directly.
Quote from: sernum on December 30, 2021, 01:48:49 PM
Why is Texas allowed to be special and unique in the way they build freeways? especially in regards to their frontage roads. aren't federal DOT standards somewhat binding? its also weird that they're going the other direction of many states that are separating ramps from local roads. is it because they would make a stink if required to?
Best I can tell, having learned some things in this thread...
It's because, initially at least, the main purpose of frontage roads in Texas was to provide access to properties. To my surprise, it's apparently often cheaper in Texas to build frontage roads than not to build them (I still don't know if 90% federal funding was used to build them during the heyday of Interstate highway construction, but if building them saved more money than it cost, why wouldn't they have been?). Without yet having seen specific indications of it, I suspect that's partly because Texas law and the courts that interpret it are more supportive of property rights and more generous with public money for aggrieved property owners than are those of other states.
Because they were primarily intended for property access, frontage roads were indeed built to lower standards than other roads. They were also built before the all-freeway Interstate system was a thing, and they were even built on highways that weren't freeways. By the time anyone put much effort into designing frontage roads as components of larger highways rather than as adjuncts to them, Texas' practices were well established and likely difficult to change, even if a compelling case for doing so was made, which it may not have been.
I'm not at all a fan of frontage roads myself, but I consider it worthwhile to try to understand both the logic and the history behind them.
Another common factor with frontage roads in Texas is the frontage roads were often built before the freeway. I like pointing to Kell Blvd in Wichita Falls as one example. I can remember back in my childhood when Kell Blvd was a divided surface street with a really wide median. Then the freeway got added in phases starting in the late 1980's.
Today highway engineers have grown a little more creative at building freeways in phases without using frontage roads. The Belle Vista Bypass is one example. The Duncan Bypass in Duncan, OK is a modest example of a Super 2 than can be eventually upgraded into a divided freeway.
Quote from: Tom958 on January 03, 2022, 09:24:49 PMIt's because, initially at least, the main purpose of frontage roads in Texas was to provide access to properties. To my surprise, it's apparently often cheaper in Texas to build frontage roads than not to build them (I still don't know if 90% federal funding was used to build them during the heyday of Interstate highway construction, but if building them saved more money than it cost, why wouldn't they have been?). Without yet having seen specific indications of it, I suspect that's partly because Texas law and the courts that interpret it are more supportive of property rights and more generous with public money for aggrieved property owners than are those of other states.
I have been trying to think of ways we could find out definitively how frontage roads were funded in the context of Interstate construction, especially in comparison to purchase of access rights, which other states resorted to in lieu of building frontage roads. The two reports also point to a need to differentiate between construction on new location (no legal obligation to provide access where none previously existed) and upgrades on the existing alignment (frontage roads are necessary to maintain existing access).
I see what Rothman says about frontage roads not matching the functional classification of the Interstate mainlanes, but I'm not convinced BPR wouldn't have seen its way to funding their construction as appurtenances to Interstates. If the argument is that building the frontage roads and buying the access rights are essentially a wash, then a policy of paying for access rights with IC funds but saying No to funding frontage roads would seem to disadvantage an agency that believes they are the better way to secure access control within its jurisdiction.
Quote from: Tom958 on January 03, 2022, 09:24:49 PMI'm not at all a fan of frontage roads myself, but I consider it worthwhile to try to understand both the logic and the history behind them.
Indeed. There are subtleties here in terms not just of traffic operation, but also urban planning, law, and economics.
Quote from: J N WinklerI see what Rothman says about frontage roads not matching the functional classification of the Interstate mainlanes, but I'm not convinced BPR wouldn't have seen its way to funding their construction as appurtenances to Interstates.
Wouldn't those funding lines be really blurred when the frontage roads are built first and signed as highways, such as US Highways, with the Interstates being built years later (or many years later)? Like the example of Kell Blvd in Wichita Falls, the
future frontage roads functioned as US-82 for many years.
Then we have other Texas oddities where state or US highways are technically signed along the frontage roads and then a toll road with the same number is signed on the limited access lanes. US-290 and US-183 in Austin are a couple examples.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 03, 2022, 11:04:34 PM
I see what Rothman says about frontage roads not matching the functional classification of the Interstate mainlanes, but I'm not convinced BPR wouldn't have seen its way to funding their construction as appurtenances to Interstates. If the argument is that building the frontage roads and buying the access rights are essentially a wash, then a policy of paying for access rights with IC funds but saying No to funding frontage roads would seem to disadvantage an agency that believes they are the better way to secure access control within its jurisdiction.
Eh, I suppose in the early days of the Interstate Highway System, everything could have been mixed up together in the enthusiasm to just build the roads, but as time progressed, FHWA developed more regulations, more audit procedures and generally became stingier. Technological advances also allowed for better oversight and control of various details over the decades. It'd be interesting to see how things worked out for Texas through the 1980s and especially post-ISTEA in 1991 in that regard, if the money really did flow more freely through the 1960s and 1970s.
...and if FHWA's TX Division is currently letting TX go 90/10 on its frontage roads (which seem to be mostly classified as collectors on their functional class map, so I doubt it), FHWA's NY's Division's got some 'splainin' to do given how picky they are with splitting up funding shares on bridge projects with approach/detour work (just went through that hell on an upcoming bridge replacement project last year...).
Of course, FHWA stepped up their game with a new version of their Financial Management Information System (FMIS) a few years ago with the intent of tying individual fiscal shares to particular assets at the segment level -- with mixed results (e.g., pavement marking projects, which can have hundreds of locations -- they had to retreat to a position where they had to allow some more generic entries). Wonder what audits looked like prior to that major upgrade...
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 03, 2022, 11:23:45 PM
Quote from: J N WinklerI see what Rothman says about frontage roads not matching the functional classification of the Interstate mainlanes, but I'm not convinced BPR wouldn't have seen its way to funding their construction as appurtenances to Interstates.
Wouldn't those funding lines be really blurred when the frontage roads are built first and signed as highways, such as US Highways, with the Interstates being built years later (or many years later)? Like the example of Kell Blvd in Wichita Falls, the future frontage roads functioned as US-82 for many years.
In earlier years where keeping the stuff straight was harder, maybe. Today, no. Keep in mind that US Highways that are tightly parallel to Interstates aren't even considered on the National Highway System and aren't even eligible for National Highway Performance Program funding (e.g., US 11/I-81 and I'd bet US 5 and I-91. US 20, however, is far enough away from the Thruway and is considered NHPP eligible. FHWA is fickle...).
Every road has a federal functional classification, even if it's just considered "Local." DOTs are currently required to keep funding shares separate depending on the eligibility of the segments/facilities being worked upon -- as a general rule. There is some flexibility (i.e., in terms of what can and cannot be lumped together -- more of what drove NYSDOT crazy on that bridge replacement I mentioned earlier), but for the most part, FHWA expects some splitting up of the fiscal shares between Interstate-eligible (90%) and other work (80%) that may be associated with the project.
I think what Bobby's getting at is if you wanted to get your frontage road paid for by FHWA, you could:
1) Build an alignment of an existing NHS US/state highway of appropriate functional class with an extremely wide median, enough for future expansion to freeway. (Or get your Congressman to get a new NHS corridor tacked on to whatever transportation bill, and build it as such.)
2) Once traffic volumes rise, build a freeway in the median, transferring the NHS designation to the freeway (i.e. code it as an expansion project belonging to the existing US/state highway).
3) The frontage roads will now be of too low a functional class to be NHS-eligible, but who cares? You already got them built with NHS funding, now you're just on the hook for maintenance.
Given that Texas regularly phases freeway construction in exactly this manner, I would be surprised if it doesn't work on the funding side as well.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 04, 2022, 12:39:10 AM
I think what Bobby's getting at is if you wanted to get your frontage road paid for by FHWA, you could:
1) Build an alignment of an existing NHS US/state highway of appropriate functional class with an extremely wide median, enough for future expansion to freeway. (Or get your Congressman to get a new NHS corridor tacked on to whatever transportation bill, and build it as such.)
2) Once traffic volumes rise, build a freeway in the median, transferring the NHS designation to the freeway (i.e. code it as an expansion project belonging to the existing US/state highway).
3) The frontage roads will now be of too low a functional class to be NHS-eligible, but who cares? You already got them built with NHS funding, now you're just on the hook for maintenance.
Given that Texas regularly phases freeway construction in exactly this manner, I would be surprised if it doesn't work on the funding side as well.
90% NHPP only works for Interstates, not general NHS routes (80%).
80% is still a hell of a lot better than 0%.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 03, 2022, 11:04:34 PM
I have been trying to think of ways we could find out definitively how frontage roads were funded in the context of Interstate construction, especially in comparison to purchase of access rights, which other states resorted to in lieu of building frontage roads.
Ask old-timers at FHWA? :-D There are enough agency historical materials online to make it appear that they're reasonably forthcoming about such things.
Twenty-three years ago, the head of the Atlanta office took my phone calls, as did several of his subordinates. Too bad I didn't think about this then. :bigass:
BTW: On New Years Day, I emailed NCDOT about that interchange on the Troy bypass that wasn't on the original plans. NCDOT seems to be fairly forthright, too, so maybe something will come of it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 05, 2022, 04:11:24 AM
80% is still a hell of a lot better than 0%.
Sure, but no one was saying they weren't federal-aid eligible at all.
Fascinating thread, because it reminds me of how Louisiana does it slightly differently with their service/frontage roads.
US 167 between Lafayette and Opelousas and US 90 between Lafayette and Berwick acquired its original ROW under contracts stipulating that the roadway would ultimately be limited access. Because of funding limitations, though, their original ROW acquisition consisted of 300 foot wide corridors, which would be enough to carry the mainline roadways and continuous two-way service roads; along with wider widths of around 450 feet to accommodate bulb-outs of the mainlines to support overpasses at future interchanges. However, unlike Texas and their policy of building the service roads (as one-way) first, Louisiana decided on a different approach: they built the mainlines as at-grade expressways with temporary crossovers and intersections, with the aforementioned bulb outs at intersections where future overpasses could be built to complete the interchanges. Intermittent service roads were then built at strategic spots to control access to the mainlines and to serve businesses and residents along the route.
This was Stage One: ultimately, in the late 70's and 80's when they built the bulk of existing I-49 from Shreveport to Lafayette, they simply upgraded the Opelousas to Lafayette segment of 167 by adding in the remainder of the service roads to make them continuous, added in the mainline overpasses to complete the interchanges, and removed the remaining crossovers and at-grade road intersections. The one exemption was that in order to build the Judson Walsh Drive interchange (Exit 15), they had go to a tighter urban diamond interchange concept due to the local businesses and the preexisting local frontage roads. (That was added on to the project in order to serve Opelousas High School, located about 1/2 mile to the west.)
The same model is now being used for the conversion of US 90 to I-49 South in Iberia and St. Mary parishes. It's now almost complete, save for that dang rail spur crossing serving that sugar mill near Jeanerette. The plan there is to truncate the spur short of the crossing and build a pipeline and service culvert that would pass underneath the mainlines and frontage road that would service a pumping station and storage tanks to deliver the goods from the spur to the processing plant.
I'm assuming that the funding was typical 90/10 Interstate, though there might have been some STiP funds involved as well.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 05, 2022, 02:39:58 PM
Because of funding limitations, though, their original ROW acquisition consisted of 300 foot wide corridors, which would be enough to carry the mainline roadways and continuous two-way service roads; along with wider widths of around 450 feet to accommodate bulb-outs of the mainlines to support overpasses at future interchanges.
Up here in NY, that practice would not be a sign of funding limitations, but money flowing freely at a statewide Fyre Festival.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 05, 2022, 02:39:58 PM
Fascinating thread, because it reminds me of how Louisiana does it slightly differently with their service/frontage roads.
US 167 between Lafayette and Opelousas and US 90 between Lafayette and Berwick acquired its original ROW under contracts stipulating that the roadway would ultimately be limited access. Because of funding limitations, though, their original ROW acquisition consisted of 300 foot wide corridors, which would be enough to carry the mainline roadways and continuous two-way service roads; along with wider widths of around 450 feet to accommodate bulb-outs of the mainlines to support overpasses at future interchanges. However, unlike Texas and their policy of building the service roads (as one-way) first, Louisiana decided on a different approach: they built the mainlines as at-grade expressways with temporary crossovers and intersections, with the aforementioned bulb outs at intersections where future overpasses could be built to complete the interchanges. Intermittent service roads were then built at strategic spots to control access to the mainlines and to serve businesses and residents along the route.
This was Stage One: ultimately, in the late 70's and 80's when they built the bulk of existing I-49 from Shreveport to Lafayette, they simply upgraded the Opelousas to Lafayette segment of 167 by adding in the remainder of the service roads to make them continuous, added in the mainline overpasses to complete the interchanges, and removed the remaining crossovers and at-grade road intersections. The one exemption was that in order to build the Judson Walsh Drive interchange (Exit 15), they had go to a tighter urban diamond interchange concept due to the local businesses and the preexisting local frontage roads. (That was added on to the project in order to serve Opelousas High School, located about 1/2 mile to the west.)
The same model is now being used for the conversion of US 90 to I-49 South in Iberia and St. Mary parishes. It's now almost complete, save for that dang rail spur crossing serving that sugar mill near Jeanerette. The plan there is to truncate the spur short of the crossing and build a pipeline and service culvert that would pass underneath the mainlines and frontage road that would service a pumping station and storage tanks to deliver the goods from the spur to the processing plant.
I'm assuming that the funding was typical 90/10 Interstate, though there might have been some STiP funds involved as well.
Interesting. For what it's worth, I'm not sure this is directly comparable to the situation on the mainline Interstates in Texas because what Louisiana did in those cases was likely a well-thought-out scheme for phased construction rather than what appears to be a policy preference toward providing frontage roads more generously than in other states. I wouldn't be surprised to find that an evaluation was done of different schemes, likely at the insistence of the FHWA, and maybe the report is still lying around somewhere.
Don't like frontage roads closely spaced. I prefer spaced out interchanges and the alternate routes can be used as a frontage road.