News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Am i the only one who despises the TXDot's road system?

Started by ColossalBlocks, March 23, 2017, 09:55:18 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

ColossalBlocks

Am i the only one who despises the Texas frontage road system? I just find the entire system shitty and cumbersome.
I am inactive for a while now my dudes. Good associating with y'all.

US Highways: 36, 49, 61, 412.

Interstates: 22, 24, 44, 55, 57, 59, 72, 74 (West).


silverback1065

They sure make for some wierd interchanges in some areas.

Bobby5280

The only drawback I see to frontage roads is the physical space needed both for them and the freeway/turnpike. The rights of way can be really wide even for a standard freeway with 2 lanes in each direction.

However, I see plenty of benefits to frontage roads. I really like the "Texas U-Turns" common along frontage roads at many exits in Texas. If you missed an exit or just need to get to a destination on the opposite side of the freeway those Texas U-Turns allow you to avoid waits at one or two traffic lights on the at grade level of the interchange. Frontage roads in some locations can spur a great deal of commercial development, which is good if encouraging development in that location is intended.

Frontage roads are often an unavoidable necessity for roads that are upgraded from busy streets or divided expressways with at grade intersections into super highways. There's usually a good bit of commercial or residential development that must still have driveway access to that thoroughfare. Driveways directly onto a freeway defeat the purpose of building a freeway. Obviously this freeway upgrade process usually involves at least some pain. It's rare for cities and towns to have enough long term fore sight to identify a major thoroughfare as a future freeway corridor. They usually just let businesses and homes build right up to the edge of the existing road rather than mandate large enough set backs to provide room for the future freeway. So, when the freeway upgrade becomes necessary a bunch of existing property must be bought and demolished, drastically raising the cost of the project. Texas is famous for building divided streets with giant medians specifically to avoid that really stupid problem. Future freeway ROW is preserved long term with that approach. Oklahoma's law makers still haven't figured out that lesson. Idiots.

Brandon

In rural areas, it's a bit much, but in urban areas, the service drives they have are very nice.  They're not unlike the service drives one finds around places like Metro Detroit.  I dearly wish we had service drives like that around Chicagoland (other than on the Ike and Ryan in Chicago itself).
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

formulanone

#4
Texas's over-reliance on frontage roads are a mixed blessing. They certainly take some getting used to.

They can be a helpful at times: you can spot bigger stores/hotels/restaurants easier. It keeps more traffic off the arterials and local streets, I suppose. It's also probably a lot easier (and cheaper) for TXDOT to modify the slip ramp onto the frontage roads to accommodate increased traffic. On the other hand, much of the through freeway in urban areas have limited to no more room for expansion - removing the frontage road isn't going down without a fight for the local business owners and enterprises. I can't comment on that specifically, but that's what I perceive.

Other drawbacks seem to be that rush hour traffic bunches seemingly everyone onto said frontage roads. Sometimes the slip-ramp or gore point is placed well aft of where you'd visually expect the ramp to be, so I confess a GPS is nice to have (although they miss them too, naturally) the first time I reach an unfamiliar location; at least once, the location I needed to visit was just a few hundred feet arrears of the ramp. If you miss an exit or slip-ramp, you've essentially missed 2-3 exits unless you can cut around on local streets. Sometimes you desired location is on the other side of the interstate...double-check to make sure you've chosen the "U-turn" area or the frontage road and not the slip ramp back onto the highway.

They seem to be rather unnecessary in rural areas, but there's also isolated areas where it does give ranch and private residence access and keeps slow-moving traffic onto the frontage roads until they're ready to join at highway speeds. Countering that, sometimes the frontage roads in urban areas are already moving swiftly at 50-60 mph...better hope you have an unobstructed view of traffic and a lead foot!

Brian556

The biggest advantage to me is that is gives traffic somewhere to go if there is an accident causing congestion on the freeway.

The biggest disadvantage is the conflict point that is created where an exit ramp meets a frontage road.

kphoger

I love Texas' roads, and that includes the frontage roads.  One thing I wish is that the older rural ones would have longer acceleration lanes, as it can be kind of dicey to merge into 75-mph traffic from a slip designed for about 25 mph.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Road Hog

In rural areas, frontage roads are often two-way traffic on both sides. Traffic is supposed to yield to the ramps, but it creates an obvious accident hazard.

DJStephens

In certain places, needed sections of frontage roads are missing.  A local example is I-10 in El Paso.  They are finally adding parallel frontage to I-10 between Mesa St (Exit 11) and Sunland Park Dr (Exit 13), years if not decades overdue.   But no provision for them east of there, preferably to the west side of the utep campus.   There is missing westbound frontage in the original "spaghetti" bowl area, in the antiquated Patriot Frwy/Raynolds interchange area.   

aboges26

I am also a fan of the Texas Turnarounds, frontage roads with the Texas Turnarounds in urban areas are a godsend if you know how to navigate side streets to avoid red light lines at rush hours  :sombrero:

My only gripe is the lack of acceleration/deceleration lanes that runs rampant throughout the system.  I get it, you save money by cutting corners on interstate design to lay down a freeway.  A perfect example of this is in Lubbock where traffic from Milwaukee Ave joins up with eastbound Marsha Sharp freeway (US 62/82).  Whatever TxDOT engineer thought that an on-ramp with as much traffic destined to come from Milwaukee Ave headed into town should have next to no acceleration lane when freeway traffic is descending from a bridge and gives not enough sight distance for either drivers to plan for merging, and went ahead with that design deserves to be fired.

Unfortunately GSV is not updated for this location, but I will include the link to the area in question so you can see how there was more than enough room to put in a continuous lane to the exit for Loop 289 (which needs a flyover to connect to northbound Loop 289, but that's a whole other subject).

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5434275,-101.955816,3a,75y,68.65h,81.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfH3qSC5P79cY2V3QeID9VA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

In_Correct

Oklahoma DOT seems to have no problem with passing lanes but they seem to have hesitations when adding grade separations because that usually will mean bypassing the town. This is also why the controlled access roads are usually tolled so that people will be discouraged to use them.

Frontage roads solves the problem of bypassing towns. It cannot possibly cost any business because all the businesses have to do is move to the frontage roads!  :sombrero: TX-DOT will bypass the towns and there does not even appear to be a problem with businesses. Perhaps TX-DOT actually helps the businesses move to the frontage roads!  :colorful:

Also, for whichever businesses that are in McAlester that complained about grade separations (the frontage roads already exist) saying "The motorists will no longer be able to see our businesses!": That is what road signs are for. They have road signs that say which exit and if there is a highway interchange nearby and which lanes to be in to take the exits. There are also other road signs that say "GAS. FOOD. LODGING." which will have the names of the affected businesses.

Frontage Roads solves piles of problems!   :cool: If it is in a town of any size they will provide access to businesses without slowing traffic. The businesses can be near the highway even though the highway is controlled access. I think having frontage roads is successful. It makes much more sense to have businesses near the highway instead of noise walls.

If it is in a rural area there are many areas where farms and also smaller residential properties that live near the highway. If the frontage roads are built, then development can pile on the frontage roads without piling on the main carriageways.

Many other states have frontage roads near the highway, but it is not a part of the highway. The on ramps and off ramps are completely separate. Texas incorporates the frontage roads and uses slip ramps onto and from the highway. Instead of having to build separate ramps, they use the existing frontage roads. Also, the frontage roads are converted into two one way pairs.

One of the things I have noticed is that the slip ramps appear to be backwards, (just like front doors of The WJM Newsroom) but actually the frontage roads are not backwards. Where you would expect an on ramp, there is an off ramp because there is plenty of time to decelerate (on the frontage road) before reaching the frontage road's traffic light or stop sign. The same applies to accelerating onto the main carriageways. They use the frontage roads to accelerate and by the time somebody reaches the slip ramp, they can easily merge onto the main carriageways.

Also, TX-DOT uses Texas Turnaround lanes. And with I-35 between Gainesville and Denton, there are separate dedicated U-Turn exits as well.  :D Also, in this area, the flyovers go over the main carriageways AND the frontage roads. This means that if there are ramps (including cloverleaf ramps), they will be safely on the frontage road. :) (Again, about McAlester ... The U.S. 270 Interchange has its cloverleaf directly on the main carriageways, meaning traffic from 270 attempting to merge on U.S. 69 might have to come to a complete stop if there is too much traffic on the carriageway to merge on to it. Even though there are frontage roads in McAlester, they are separate from the ramps).

TX-DOT has been building and converting highways by leaving plenty of space in the medians. They build the frontage roads first and construct main carriageways later. If I worked for TX-DOT, then I would insist on having even more room in the medians to add trees. And also plenty of room between the carriage ways and the frontage roads for future construction of carriageways to access a future stack interchange. Even crazier: Make it 4 lanes (in the same direction) meaning 2 lanes for the Leftbound and 2 lanes for the Rightbound. And then the frontage roads have their separate interchanges. It is basically a Cloverleaf with Diamond interchange (for the fornage roads) and a Stack interchange (for the main carriageways).  :-P It is basically a 3 + 4 + 3 + 2 + trees + 2 + 3 + 4 + 3 or however you type that that. 3 lane frontage roads, 4 lanes approaching a stack interchange, and 3 lanes as part of the main carriage ways (with the possibility of a an expansion total of 5 lanes, which means 3 + 4 + 5 + 2 + trees + 2 + 5 + 4 + 3) ... The lanes closest to the trees are managed lanes. Bridges might be necessary for the managed lanes to bypass the Main Carriageways to directly exit onto the Stack Interchange Roads and The Frontage Roads. I do not know how Managed Lanes work, but if they don't have occasional ramps that fly over the main carriage ways, then the managed lanes are surround by tons of other lanes.

But by building the frontage roads first, then they avoid development that gets in the way of upgrading to controlled access. They try to plan ahead but I would like to see some type of expansion of U.S. 377 before development is piling onto it. I guess because of its close proximity to Interstate 35, U.S. 377 is probably going to be upgraded to only a 5 to 7 lane avenue or a 4 to 6 lane boulevard from The Red River to Granbury. If there is even room to do that.

And when doing road construction on a main carriageway, the traffic is simply redirected onto the frontage roads. :biggrin: Compare with Oklahoma I-35, they have redirected the traffic onto the opposite carriageway when doing road construction. Google Maps reveals that there are paved Xs created in the medians.

There are several disadvantages to the frontage roads:

Obviously they medians are way too narrow. It would be nice to have a 1,000 feet (or even better, 1,000 meter) median to add all these carriageways and trees.

I mentioned at least 3 lanes for the frontage roads would be nice. This includes a Gainesville style frontage roads that has the inner lanes as a slip ramps with even more lanes at traffic lights. Another inner lane is a Turnaround Lane, the lane next to it is a Left Turn Lane, the two lanes next are "Go Straight" lanes, and the outermost lane is a right turn lane. (Meaning 5 + 4 + 5 + 2 + trees + 2 + 5 + 4 + 5) because a problem with frontage roads is that it reduces to ONE lane near slip ramps and then the slip ramp becomes the passing lane.   :-/

Another issue is that I-35 frontage roads in Cooke County and northern Denton County frontage roads have no bridges over water nor bridges over rail.  :-| There is a forced get on the highway or use the Turnaround lane. I-35E in Denton has bridges for the frontage roads, but that is a single track so they will have to just redo all the bridges to make room for more tracks.

But when these issues are resolved, then that means there are actually zero disadvantages to frontage roads.  :bigass:
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

Tom958

Quote from: ColossalBlocks on March 23, 2017, 09:55:18 AM
Am i the only one who despises the Texas frontage road system? I just find the entire system shitty and cumbersome.

I agree. They're bad for walkability and impossible to serve decently with transit.

J N Winkler

I am not a fan of the frontage roads in Texas, though when I go there I pull on my big boy pants and deal with them.

Besides the various geometric deficiencies mentioned, there are also issues with design consistency (some Texas turnarounds have protected acceleration lanes, some don't) and lane continuity (some frontage roads have spiral striping patterns that force you to change lanes before every light).  Kphoger has said in another discussion of frontage roads that he prefers the ones in Texas to those in Wichita.  I respectfully disagree--Wichita's frontage roads are mostly on Kellogg Avenue and have been built or reconstructed within a 20-year timeframe, so design is of a generally higher standard and more consistent than is the case with older frontage roads in Texas, though there are some places in east Wichita where it is advantageous to exit early just to avoid trying to change across two or three lanes with heavy fast traffic.

I have found that the ease of locating businesses on frontage roads is largely chimerical.  Visibility has more to do with on-premises signing and line of sight, which is easy enough to arrange even with backage access only.  Meanwhile, frontage road access tends to promote very heavy visual clutter that makes it very hard to find specific businesses without looping past twice.  And in terms of safety and vehicle sympathy, it is easier to turn into and out of a backage road with a low operating speed than a frontage road where a significant share of the traffic is speed-adapted and thus moving nearly at freeway speeds.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

kphoger

Quote from: In_Correct on March 24, 2017, 03:12:05 AM
One of the things I have noticed is that the slip ramps appear to be backwards, (just like front doors of The WJM Newsroom) but actually the frontage roads are not backwards. Where you would expect an on ramp, there is an off ramp because there is plenty of time to decelerate (on the frontage road) before reaching the frontage road's traffic light or stop sign. The same applies to accelerating onto the main carriageways. They use the frontage roads to accelerate and by the time somebody reaches the slip ramp, they can easily merge onto the main carriageways.

I believe you're talking about "X ramps", which is used where traffic volumes are high enough that a typical diamond interchange would see significant tailbacks.  Here is a link you might find interesting (warning to mobile users:  this links to a .pdf file) on the topic.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

kphoger

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 24, 2017, 01:49:46 PM
Kphoger has said in another discussion of frontage roads that he prefers the ones in Texas to those in Wichita.  I respectfully disagree--Wichita's frontage roads are mostly on Kellogg Avenue and have been built or reconstructed within a 20-year timeframe, so design is of a generally higher standard and more consistent than is the case with older frontage roads in Texas, though there are some places in east Wichita where it is advantageous to exit early just to avoid trying to change across two or three lanes with heavy fast traffic.

I might note that I live on the east side, and you live on the west side.   :-/
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Brian556

Not having frontage roads cross rivers or lakes is a huge problem. This is because when an accident occurs, there is not reasonable way around it. I-30 at Lake Ray Hubbard is the worst, followed by I-35 at the Red River. I-35E at Lake Lewisville is getting them; they will open soon


lordsutch

Quote from: In_Correct on March 24, 2017, 03:12:05 AM
One of the things I have noticed is that the slip ramps appear to be backwards, (just like front doors of The WJM Newsroom) but actually the frontage roads are not backwards. Where you would expect an on ramp, there is an off ramp because there is plenty of time to decelerate (on the frontage road) before reaching the frontage road's traffic light or stop sign. The same applies to accelerating onto the main carriageways. They use the frontage roads to accelerate and by the time somebody reaches the slip ramp, they can easily merge onto the main carriageways.

TxDOT has gone on a rather extensive campaign of reversing ramps to this configuration in urban and suburban areas, since it's more efficient and avoids a lot of problems with traffic trying to cut over multiple lanes to turn right or get on the freeway after turning onto the frontage road.

And for what it's worth TxDOT no longer plans continuous frontage roads as part of new freeways. Some of this is to avoid shunpiking on toll facilities (and I expect TxDOT now plans new freeways with the prospect of turning them over to toll authorities to actually build in the back of their minds; most of the Austin CTRMA toll roads were originally planned as TxDOT projects, for example), but it's a general statewide policy to reduce ROW and construction costs - it's gotten to the point it's cheaper to buy out the access rights than build frontage roads.

hbelkins

Quote from: Brian556 on March 25, 2017, 05:18:41 PM
Not having frontage roads cross rivers or lakes is a huge problem. This is because when an accident occurs, there is not reasonable way around it.

This doesn't seem to be an issue in any of the other 46 lower-48 states that don't consistently use frontage roads. (I'm acknowledging Arkansas' occasional use of them here as a frontage-road state).


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

In_Correct

Quote from: lordsutch on March 25, 2017, 06:47:14 PM
Quote from: In_Correct on March 24, 2017, 03:12:05 AM
One of the things I have noticed is that the slip ramps appear to be backwards, (just like front doors of The WJM Newsroom) but actually the frontage roads are not backwards. Where you would expect an on ramp, there is an off ramp because there is plenty of time to decelerate (on the frontage road) before reaching the frontage road's traffic light or stop sign. The same applies to accelerating onto the main carriageways. They use the frontage roads to accelerate and by the time somebody reaches the slip ramp, they can easily merge onto the main carriageways.

TxDOT has gone on a rather extensive campaign of reversing ramps to this configuration in urban and suburban areas, since it's more efficient and avoids a lot of problems with traffic trying to cut over multiple lanes to turn right or get on the freeway after turning onto the frontage road.

And for what it's worth TxDOT no longer plans continuous frontage roads as part of new freeways. Some of this is to avoid shunpiking on toll facilities (and I expect TxDOT now plans new freeways with the prospect of turning them over to toll authorities to actually build in the back of their minds; most of the Austin CTRMA toll roads were originally planned as TxDOT projects, for example), but it's a general statewide policy to reduce ROW and construction costs - it's gotten to the point it's cheaper to buy out the access rights than build frontage roads.

But I thought that the newer highways build the frontage roads first??
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

J N Winkler

Quote from: lordsutch on March 25, 2017, 06:47:14 PMAnd for what it's worth TxDOT no longer plans continuous frontage roads as part of new freeways. Some of this is to avoid shunpiking on toll facilities (and I expect TxDOT now plans new freeways with the prospect of turning them over to toll authorities to actually build in the back of their minds; most of the Austin CTRMA toll roads were originally planned as TxDOT projects, for example), but it's a general statewide policy to reduce ROW and construction costs - it's gotten to the point it's cheaper to buy out the access rights than build frontage roads.

My understanding is that at one point in the early noughties (2002?), the Texas Transportation Commission proposed to end the presumption that new freeways would be built with frontage roads, as outlined in this leaflet:

ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pio/newsrel/frquest.pdf

This report by Kockelman et al. (cited in the TTI research report on ramp reversals and X interchanges Kphoger linked to above) outlines some of the justifications:

https://ctr.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubs/1873_2.pdf

However, I was under the impression a public outcry forced the TTC to back down.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Brian556

Quote from hbelkins:
QuoteThis doesn't seem to be an issue in any of the other 46 lower-48 states that don't consistently use frontage roads. (I'm acknowledging Arkansas' occasional use of them here as a frontage-road state).

I guess in other states you just have to sit still until the accident is cleared, meanwhile in Texas, you can just go around them on the frontage road.

To me, its very important to have an alternate route for freeway traffic, whether it be a frontage road, or a close parallel US Highway, since freeway accidents are so asininely frequent

Road Hog

Quote from: hbelkins on March 25, 2017, 09:47:05 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on March 25, 2017, 05:18:41 PM
Not having frontage roads cross rivers or lakes is a huge problem. This is because when an accident occurs, there is not reasonable way around it.

This doesn't seem to be an issue in any of the other 46 lower-48 states that don't consistently use frontage roads. (I'm acknowledging Arkansas' occasional use of them here as a frontage-road state).
In the Little Rock area there are plenty of frontage roads. But most freeways have a corresponding old highway to detour on, like US 64 or 70 off I-40.

US 81

It's all in what you're used to, I guess. Having lived with them all my life, I can get around without a frontage road, but I prefer them.


J N Winkler

Quote from: Brian556 on March 26, 2017, 12:48:03 AMI guess in other states you just have to sit still until the accident is cleared, meanwhile in Texas, you can just go around them on the frontage road.

It depends on the state, but typically there are detours available on surface routes, and some of these are permanently signposted; the MUTCD makes an "Emergency" banner available for this purpose, and Pennsylvania (for example) has color-coded permanent detours.

For a person on a long interurban highway trip, I think it actually makes more sense to detour early and wide on surface roads far removed from the freeway corridor than to rely on frontage roads.  Even when the frontage road has the same lane count as the freeway mainline in the same direction, which in Texas often does not happen outside urban areas, there is no guarantee it will cross bodies of water, and there are usually bottlenecks at ramps that result in long waits on the freeway.  30 minutes spent waiting in a queue on the freeway is equivalent in time cost (though not mileage) to detouring to an uncongested route in the next county, provided of course you learn of the crash early enough to take advantage of the last opportunity to exit onto such a detour.

Quote from: Brian556 on March 26, 2017, 12:48:03 AMTo me, it's very important to have an alternate route for freeway traffic, whether it be a frontage road, or a close parallel US Highway, since freeway accidents are so asininely frequent.

The tradeoff is that frontage roads tend to be correlated with close exit spacing, which degrades both traffic operations and safety on the freeway and thus makes accidents more likely in the first place.  This is one of the reasons TxDOT cited for wanting to back away from the presumption that new freeways will be built with frontage roads.

When all is said and done, I think a driver in Texas is about as vulnerable to accident-related delay as a driver in most other states.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

jwolfer

Even if there is an alternate most people will not stray off the interstate. Akthough some of thr GPS followers will go down cowpaths if they are dirrcted.. All common sense and basic map skills are gone

LGMS428




Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.