Examples needed: Narrow ROW Freeways with frontage roads and parallel Railroad?

Started by thisdj78, June 29, 2024, 01:06:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

thisdj78

What are some freeway examples in Texas that have all of the following characteristics:

1) In an urban area
2) Narrow ROW
3) Frontage roads on both sides
4) Railroad tracks running parallel
5) Major Cross streets with bridges over tracks


Road Hog

I don't know how close the DART line runs to it, but Central Expressway in Dallas south of Walnut Hill seems to fit the bill.

Dirt Roads

^^ Edit:  Looks like I wasn't the only one thinking about this.

I was remembering that short section of I-45 in Dallas parallel to DART tracks, but this doesn't meet a number of your criterion.  Most of I-45 in Dallas is on narrow right-of-way, but this section isn't and all of the perpendicular streets cross DART at grade. 

But you might find this of interest anywhoosit:
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=h_&q=dallas+tx&iaxm=maps&source=about

05danper42842

The most narrow part of 635 is the section between Ferguson(CenterVille) and La Prada.
The Transmission lines are the houses so close to the road make a challenge for Txdot.
Check out the YouTube video link is a Simulation. (Skip to 4:17)
Daniel Perez

Wait don't Scroll! Come on and visit Mesquite BBQ since 1959 in Downtown Mesquite.
Level 4 Waze Editor
OSM Editor
Has the most up-to-date information regarding roads and other projects in Mesquite.

MaxConcrete

You don't define "narrow" for right-of-way. I consider anything below 400 feet to be narrow.

Instances in Houston are
SH 225 in Deer Park
US 290 in Cypress, for example at Barker-Cypress Road

The Hardy Toll road has a multiple track railroad in its middle. It doesn't have traditional frontage roads.
www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

05danper42842

The more narrow part of 635 is actually between Gross Road and Scyene at Mesquite Texas. At one is 148 Feet wide.
Daniel Perez

Wait don't Scroll! Come on and visit Mesquite BBQ since 1959 in Downtown Mesquite.
Level 4 Waze Editor
OSM Editor
Has the most up-to-date information regarding roads and other projects in Mesquite.

thisdj78

Thanks everyone. The reason for the inquiry is that the mayor of my town (Hutto) asked for input on what road projects to prioritize or push TXDOT for. I said by far US79 needs to be converted to a limited access expressway through the town. I was trying to find comparable project examples to share (there is a limitation of only 200ft of ROW with a rail line to the south and businesses to the north). 685 needs to have a bridge over the rail line as well:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/rWxmmBKXew3FHoCs5?g_st=com.google.maps.preview.copy

armadillo speedbump

The US 90A superstreet (expressway) east of Stafford, TX fits criteria 1 through 4, and most of the intersections I measured fit within 200'.  Six grade separated through lanes plus frontage roads at intersections.  That rail line is twice as busy as the one through Hutto.

Rothman

Quote from: thisdj78 on June 30, 2024, 06:46:22 PMThanks everyone. The reason for the inquiry is that the mayor of my town (Hutto) asked for input on what road projects to prioritize or push TXDOT for. I said by far US79 needs to be converted to a limited access expressway through the town. I was trying to find comparable project examples to share (there is a limitation of only 200ft of ROW with a rail line to the south and businesses to the north). 685 needs to have a bridge over the rail line as well:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/rWxmmBKXew3FHoCs5?g_st=com.google.maps.preview.copy

Wonder how that proposal will go over.  Let us know.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

thisdj78

Quote from: armadillo speedbump on June 30, 2024, 09:54:23 PMThe US 90A superstreet (expressway) east of Stafford, TX fits criteria 1 through 4, and most of the intersections I measured fit within 200'.  Six grade separated through lanes plus frontage roads at intersections.  That rail line is twice as busy as the one through Hutto.

Thanks, that is a perfect example. I think the intersection of Post Oak @ US90 has the most similarities to FM685 @ US79.

Bobby5280

One problem with the example of US-90 in Stafford is the road has no shoulders. And the median is basically a bump in the road separating the two directions of traffic. Something Interstate grade would need the proper left and right shoulders.

thisdj78

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 01, 2024, 11:54:55 AMOne problem with the example of US-90 in Stafford is the road has no shoulders. And the median is basically a bump in the road separating the two directions of traffic. Something Interstate grade would need the proper left and right shoulders.

That's perfectly fine, US79 doesn't need to meet Interstate standards in this case. It just needs to be a limited access expressway with the cross street of FM685 having a bridge over the tracks (exactly like Post Oak at US90). Theres simply not enough room to do much of anything else.

TheBox

Whiling North Fwy (in its current shape and form) between Beltway 8 and Downtown aren't parallel with railroad, it is a narrow freeway with frontage roads and goes over a railroad. And that's all before we get to the lack of shoulder lanes and is probably the easiest freeway to get flooded (that isn't east or south of Houston).

Compared to Katy Freeway, Southwest/Eastex Freeway, and even Northwest Freeway, it sticks out like a sore thumb. Both in age and in width.
Wake me up when they upgrade US-290 between the state's largest city and growing capital into expressway standards if it interstate standards.

Giddings bypass, Elgin bypass, and Elgin-Manor freeway/tollway when?

Bobby5280

One short stretch of highway I find interesting for its use of a narrow footprint is US-74 going Southeast of I-485 in Charlotte, just before the Monroe Expressway toll road bypass. They're fitting a six lane freeway, plus inner & outer shoulders, plus 2-lane and 3-lane frontage roads, all in a 230' wide footprint. That's an impressive use of space.

Another thing they can look at is design features of I-69 to the South of Indianapolis. Normally, the main lanes of an Interstate highway and flanking frontage roads are separated quite a bit by grassy land. In the case of I-69 some portions of the highway have the main lanes and frontage roads butted up next to each other and separated by Jersey barriers. The I-69 median isn't very wide; there is grass there and a cable barrier. Bits and pieces of this kind of design are being incorporated into I-69 projects in East Texas.

thisdj78

Quote from: Rothman on June 30, 2024, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on June 30, 2024, 06:46:22 PMThanks everyone. The reason for the inquiry is that the mayor of my town (Hutto) asked for input on what road projects to prioritize or push TXDOT for. I said by far US79 needs to be converted to a limited access expressway through the town. I was trying to find comparable project examples to share (there is a limitation of only 200ft of ROW with a rail line to the south and businesses to the north). 685 needs to have a bridge over the rail line as well:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/rWxmmBKXew3FHoCs5?g_st=com.google.maps.preview.copy

Wonder how that proposal will go over.  Let us know.

Shared it with the Mayor, he liked it but cautioned that TXDOT has the ultimate say and control over what they decide to do. He said a study is being done, so I suggested that if he has any contacts at TXDOT or input on the study, that he share this example (of US90 at Post Oak in Houston).

Rothman

Quote from: thisdj78 on July 01, 2024, 11:01:14 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 30, 2024, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on June 30, 2024, 06:46:22 PMThanks everyone. The reason for the inquiry is that the mayor of my town (Hutto) asked for input on what road projects to prioritize or push TXDOT for. I said by far US79 needs to be converted to a limited access expressway through the town. I was trying to find comparable project examples to share (there is a limitation of only 200ft of ROW with a rail line to the south and businesses to the north). 685 needs to have a bridge over the rail line as well:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/rWxmmBKXew3FHoCs5?g_st=com.google.maps.preview.copy

Wonder how that proposal will go over.  Let us know.

Shared it with the Mayor, he liked it but cautioned that TXDOT has the ultimate say and control over what they decide to do. He said a study is being done, so I suggested that if he has any contacts at TXDOT or input on the study, that he share this example (of US90 at Post Oak in Houston).

Sounds predictable.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Anthony_JK

Perhaps they should consider depressing FM 685 so that it goes underneath the railroad line and US 79, and build dedicated narrow ramps as frontage roads connecting the main lanes of US 79 to the cross street, allowing 79 and the railroad to stay at present grade. Would save more money than elevating both 685 and the offramps to clear the railroad line. Perhaps, even extend the frontage roads west to the SH 130 3-level diamond interchange, making US 79 fully limited access from there to 685. Unless there are plans to widen 79 east of there to 4 lanes divided, that would do fine.

thisdj78

Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 04, 2024, 02:31:40 AMPerhaps they should consider depressing FM 685 so that it goes underneath the railroad line and US 79, and build dedicated narrow ramps as frontage roads connecting the main lanes of US 79 to the cross street, allowing 79 and the railroad to stay at present grade. Would save more money than elevating both 685 and the offramps to clear the railroad line. Perhaps, even extend the frontage roads west to the SH 130 3-level diamond interchange, making US 79 fully limited access from there to 685. Unless there are plans to widen 79 east of there to 4 lanes divided, that would do fine.


The only challenge with that proposal is that intersection really needs to be a volleyball format with US79 being grade separated as well. Also, it seems like more of a hassle to build under the tracks as they would need their own bridge vs building over them.

Anthony_JK

Quote from: thisdj78 on July 04, 2024, 05:07:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 04, 2024, 02:31:40 AMPerhaps they should consider depressing FM 685 so that it goes underneath the railroad line and US 79, and build dedicated narrow ramps as frontage roads connecting the main lanes of US 79 to the cross street, allowing 79 and the railroad to stay at present grade. Would save more money than elevating both 685 and the offramps to clear the railroad line. Perhaps, even extend the frontage roads west to the SH 130 3-level diamond interchange, making US 79 fully limited access from there to 685. Unless there are plans to widen 79 east of there to 4 lanes divided, that would do fine.


The only challenge with that proposal is that intersection really needs to be a volleyball format with US79 being grade separated as well. Also, it seems like more of a hassle to build under the tracks as they would need their own bridge vs building over them.
Is traffic on FM 685 bad enough to warrant a 3-level diamond??

In my proposal, the frontage roads for accessing US 79 would be depressed to connect at grade with the depressed mainline of 685, which would pass underneath both 79 and the rail line, which would remain at current grade. Main advantage is that all you would have to do is build grade-separated bridges for both 79 and the railroad to cross over the depressed 685, and retaining MSE walls for the depressed frontage road/ramp connections.

Whereas, with an elevated 685 crossing over 79 and the rail line, you'd require not only an extended elevated section of 685 that would require higher clearances to clear the rail line (22.5' minimum for railroad overpasses), but extended elevated structures for the frontage road/access road connections. That could bring up issues with the next intersection down the line on 79 to the east, unless your plan is to upgrade the entirety of 79 through that town to freeway or limited access expressway. Also, could bring conflicts with the 3-level "volleyball diamond" interchange with TX 130 to its west. Elevated structures, especially extended over rail lines, are prohibitively expensive compared to depressed structures, although the disruption of traffic movements during construction of depressed structures may be more severe.

A 3-level 79/685 interchange would add to the expense due to the need for extra frontage roads alongside 685 to make the at-grade connection to the 79 access roads, and would probably still necessitate a mainline overpass of 685 over mainline 79 and the railroad line. Basically, you could end up with kind of a hybrid structure with the top level being 685 elevated over 79 and the rail line, then 79 at current grade with bridging over the 685 access roads, then finally the 685 access roads depressed below grade to cross under 79 and the rail line. Very expensive, and maybe a bit too much for a local intersection.


moto g power (2022)


armadillo speedbump

Most likely they will go with the simpler, cheaper option of elevating and just 2 levels.  The existing layout of 685 suggest that.  Underpasses add needless and more expensive complications.

Cheapest is a 685 bridge for through lanes while outside lanes continue to cross the railroad at grade and an intersection with 79.

Or they'll spend more (perhaps as a phase 2 later) by adding elevated feeders off 79 (center or side) for an intersection on the bridge.  US 80 @ Gateway Blvd in Forney is a similar example, though the 79 ROW bridged won't be near as wide.  The 359 @ Alt US 90 in Richmond, TX might be closer in scale.  Even though it is an elevated T intersection, you wouldn't have to widen much to adapt it to a through road.

froggie

Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 29, 2024, 05:18:06 PMYou don't define "narrow" for right-of-way. I consider anything below 400 feet to be narrow.

I found this quote amusing, since 400ft would be considered generous in most states.

thisdj78

Quote from: armadillo speedbump on July 04, 2024, 06:41:47 PMMost likely they will go with the simpler, cheaper option of elevating and just 2 levels.  The existing layout of 685 suggest that.  Underpasses add needless and more expensive complications.

Cheapest is a 685 bridge for through lanes while outside lanes continue to cross the railroad at grade and an intersection with 79.

Or they'll spend more (perhaps as a phase 2 later) by adding elevated feeders off 79 (center or side) for an intersection on the bridge.  US 80 @ Gateway Blvd in Forney is a similar example, though the 79 ROW bridged won't be near as wide.  The 359 @ Alt US 90 in Richmond, TX might be closer in scale.  Even though it is an elevated T intersection, you wouldn't have to widen much to adapt it to a through road.


I could see that. The most important thing is to elevate FM685 over the tracks and convert US79 to limited access. The US80 in Forney example accomplishes both.

thisdj78

Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 04, 2024, 05:59:41 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on July 04, 2024, 05:07:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 04, 2024, 02:31:40 AMPerhaps they should consider depressing FM 685 so that it goes underneath the railroad line and US 79, and build dedicated narrow ramps as frontage roads connecting the main lanes of US 79 to the cross street, allowing 79 and the railroad to stay at present grade. Would save more money than elevating both 685 and the offramps to clear the railroad line. Perhaps, even extend the frontage roads west to the SH 130 3-level diamond interchange, making US 79 fully limited access from there to 685. Unless there are plans to widen 79 east of there to 4 lanes divided, that would do fine.


The only challenge with that proposal is that intersection really needs to be a volleyball format with US79 being grade separated as well. Also, it seems like more of a hassle to build under the tracks as they would need their own bridge vs building over them.
Is traffic on FM 685 bad enough to warrant a 3-level diamond??

In my proposal, the frontage roads for accessing US 79 would be depressed to connect at grade with the depressed mainline of 685, which would pass underneath both 79 and the rail line, which would remain at current grade. Main advantage is that all you would have to do is build grade-separated bridges for both 79 and the railroad to cross over the depressed 685, and retaining MSE walls for the depressed frontage road/ramp connections.
moto g power (2022)

I misunderstood your prior comment, I thought you were saying keep US79 as is (no frontage roads or grade separation) and run 685 under it and the tracks. But sounds like you're proposing a below grade version of what armadillo is saying (eg. US80 in Forney).



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.