AARoads Forum

I think that frontage roads are awesome, they provide an easier way to get to businesses, and I think they almost make a freeway safer, even though there's people who don't know how to yield... I like them, and apparently so does all of Texas...

Y'all?
BigMatt

I just moved to Tucson, which is the first town I have lived in with frontage roads, so I'm going to have to get used to it. The first time I ever used them, I didn't like them at all because they didn't seem intuitive, but I can see the reasoning behind them, so we'll see once I've been around them for a while

I like them for two reasons.
#1- they provide away for traffic to get past accidents that block the freeway.
#2- They allow traffic that's just going to the next cross street to avoid getting on and off the freeway; making it easier on them and avoiding the merging vehicles impediment to freeway traffic.

I like them in general, but I dislike the bidirectional ones for which traffic heading in the opposite direction of the adjacent freeway lanes has to yield to off-ramp traffic.  While there tends to be good visibility of the freeway's right lane, one has to always remain on their toes for exiting traffic to which one has to yield, as one does not have the benefit of seeing their brake lights, and the turn signal is - more often than not - omitted.

Doesn't matter to me one way or the other. Sometimes I use them, sometimes I don't.

I like them. They make getting around much easier, and seem to relieve local traffic from the freeway proper. Except in extremely rural areas, one-way ones are best, and it's totally irritating if there's no U-turn lane (I'm looking at you I-495 in New York!).

While they are convenient, I don't like way they draw heavy commercialization parallel to the freeway. It's ugly IMO and can be distracting.

And since I'm from Dallas originally, you won't ever catch me calling them anything but service roads!

I voted No, but actually my opinion is not quite that categorical and my reasons are not those given for the "No" option.  As a general rule, I think that if a freeway is being built from scratch, there should be a preference for development to be grouped away from the freeway mainline.  However, I don't really have any objections to frontage roads per se as long as they are designed appropriately for the conditions--no bidirectionality, clear signing, adequate spacing between ramp termini, and no design features which frustrate driver expectancy.

Nothing wrong with bi-directional frontage roads per se.  The problem is where you have slip ramps from the freeway to said frontage roads, for reasons Jake cited.  If you're using slip ramps, the frontage roads should be one-way.

This depends on your definition of frontage road.

If you mean, simply, a road parallel to the freeway allowing access to local businesses, then yes, of course, I'm all for that.

If you mean the Texas-style deathtraps which connect directly to the freeway on/off ramps, then no thank you.

How do you define the point at which a frontage road becomes a C/D road? Anything that keeps junction hoppers of the main lanes is a good thing. The ones I hate are those that have become commercial strips full of the same anonymous brands of cheap food and lodgings. If they are close to the main lanes then what impact does that have on future widening?

Quote from: Truvelo on December 22, 2010, 11:40:38 AM
How do you define the point at which a frontage road becomes a C/D road?

A collector/distributor road is considered to be inside a freeway's ROW while frontage roads run just outside.

Just as an example, in I-96's local-express configuration in Detroit, the local lanes would act as C/D, but there are portions (from miles 185 to 186 is the best example) which also have frontage roads.

Quote from: rawmustard on December 22, 2010, 11:47:41 AM

A collector/distributor road is considered to be inside a freeway's ROW while frontage roads run just outside.

and how can this be discerned without looking up the planning documents in a file cabinet behind the lavatory, whose presence is indicated solely by a sign that says "beware of the leopard"?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 22, 2010, 11:56:22 AM
and how can this be discerned without looking up the planning documents in a file cabinet behind the lavatory, whose presence is indicated solely by a sign that says "beware of the leopard"?

C/Ds still have controlled-access (no driveways or signals) while frontage roads don't.

Quote from: rawmustard on December 22, 2010, 11:47:41 AM
Just as an example, in I-96's local-express configuration in Detroit, the local lanes would act as C/D, but there are portions (from miles 185 to 186 is the best example) which also have frontage roads.

The wide ROW there is presumably to accommodate traffic from the Davison Freeway had it been completed.

NY 104 has them in Rochester and they're annoying.  The western ones were built so that traffic could get from NY 104 to every single street that crosses it, and it's not fun to have to travel 1/2 miles on frontage roads through traffic lights just to get on the freeway.  The eastern ones are less annoying but were constructed with a different purpose: there wasn't enough dirt to build the bridges for the freeway when it was built, so for a decade the freeway ended at Five Mile Line Rd and traffic used the frontage roads to NY 250, where traffic would shift over to Ridge Rd.  Today they're almost completely unnecessary, though the ones between Holt Rd and NY 250 allow access to a plaza from the west and North Ponds Park from the east.

I don't care that much for them, but I am not totally against them. In an urban setting with lots of businesses along the freeway, may be. In a rural area that doesn't really need them, no thanks.

Quote from: PennDOTFan on December 22, 2010, 03:56:17 PM
I don't care that much for them, but I am not totally against them. In an urban setting with lots of businesses along the freeway, may be. In a rural area that doesn't really need them, no thanks.

I agree with you here.  If it is an upgraded arterial with existing development a good way to have a freeway and maintian business access.  But if building from scratch not the best.  The only Frontage Road freeway here in Jacksonville is the Arlington Expressway and it seems to work well. 

I would like a Frontage Road set up on Blanding Blvd(SR21) in the vicinity of I-295 in Jacksonville and Orange Park.  It would allow Clay County traffic to avoid the stop and go in that area

Does anyone know why Texas went crazy building them and other states did not?

(regional language note: we call them "service roads" around here)


Personal opinion: in urban areas, they just make sense. Besides providing a local alternative to the freeway in case of traffic or in case of a trip actually being local, they also serve the function of engaging the community with the freeway more, reducing the neighborhood severance effect. Less of a mental barrier when it's lined with shops, no?

In rural areas... I'm ambivalent on the matter.

Quote from: jwolfer on December 22, 2010, 04:05:31 PM
Does anyone know why Texas went crazy building them and other states did not?

That might have to do with when TxDOT built the freeways (at least Houston Harte here), they built them between existing local streets, and kept the existing streets as frontage roads.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Texas&ll=31.469338,-100.442998&spn=0.012116,0.030899&t=h&z=16
Those streets are numbered streets, 6th and 7th. The frontage roads on Houston Harte change names like three or four times each direction.

As for the rest of Texas, I'm not sure.
BigMatt

Chicago has few because most of the Expressways were built in rail corridors that allready had limited access points. The Dan Ryan was built next to exisiting streets that became frontage roads like Big Matts Houston example.
The Tollroads were orginally built as bypasses(another discussion) and thus not many interchanges or frontage roads originally.
On I-55 parts of old 66 and its bypasses sort of serve as frontage roads -a rare rural small town example in Illinois

Quote from: BigMatt on December 22, 2010, 09:29:05 PMAs for the rest of Texas, I'm not sure.

It meant they didn't have to buy access rights from all the landowners. In addition, many of Texas's rural freeways were directly upgraded from surface roads and had existing intersections.

I tend to like 'em...at the very least, they keep local traffic seperated from the mainline, and they serve local access well.

I prefer the one-way "Texas"-style set-up...but two-way frontage roads can work too if the interchanges are stand-alone.  I-49/US 167 between Opelousas and Lafayette has continuous two-way frontage roads through its entire length, and it works quite well. So do the upgraded portions of US 90 near New Iberia and Jeanerette. Though, hopefully when the I-49 Connector/I-49 South finally gets finished (maybe in the next century?? Grrrrrr!!!), they decide to convert at least the section of I-49 North S of the LA 182/North Ambassador Cafferty Parkway interchange to I-10 to more of a "Texas urban" style.


Anthony

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2010, 09:59:56 PM
I like them in general, but I dislike the bidirectional ones for which traffic heading in the opposite direction of the adjacent freeway lanes has to yield to off-ramp traffic.  While there tends to be good visibility of the freeway's right lane, one has to always remain on their toes for exiting traffic to which one has to yield, as one does not have the benefit of seeing their brake lights, and the turn signal is - more often than not - omitted.

They have those kinds in Arkansas along I-55. I hate them. The ones they have here in Jackson along I-55 go in one direction according to which side you're on. I like those a whole lot better.

 Texas only uses the frontage roads if the road in question had frontage that's been upgraded to a freeway. East Texas on I-20 and I-30 have stretches without frontage roads. As does I-10/I-20 out west.

Rather than building a whole new ROW, it was easier to build frontage roads to access businesses/ranches/farms/houses and still have a freeway use the same basic space.

Texas also has stretches where they've deemed roads to be future freeways with wide medians and the old road will be relegated to frontage roads once completed. US281, US77 for example. There's many others out west (US287 from Amarillo to Dallas has stretches where this is probably a future plan).

That's like what I said about Houston Harte Expressway, here in Angelo.

The way Texas does 'em on pretty much every mile of freeway seems like a big waste of space and money.  Obviously Texas-style frontage roads have their place in certain urban environs, especially where an arterial surface route has been upgraded or a freeway is nestled into a street grid, but to build every freeway like that, even when starting from scratch, is just a big waste.  It's also a big rubber stamp for urban sprawl; an open invitation to mostly empty parking lots with ugly buildings behind them.

Nevada doesn't really have frontage roads in the sense described thus far in the thread--one-directional roads adjacent to the freeway. The only highway that really has them is sections of I-215/CR 215 around Las Vegas. These are new with the freeways (and in the case of CR 215, was the original roads that carried the traffic until the freeway was built), and adjacent land is mostly undeveloped.

Other sections of Nevada have different types of frontage roads. These are most often found along rural sections of I-80 and some rural parts of I-15. This is typically where the old U.S. highway was not covered up directly by the Interstate and provides bi-directional local access in an area.


Each type of frontage road serves a purpose. In highly built areas, I can see the need for Texas-style frontage roads--especially if the road preexisted the freeway. Building these with the freeway isn't really necessary in many cases, especially if that degree of local access isn't needed to avoid breaking up neighborhoods or business districts.

Bumping this to voice my displeasure with "excessive" frontage roads. Namely, the abundance of them in Texas.

Miss your exit? It's almost like missing two exits, since you have to spend lots of time making U-turns and doubling back. Too many one-way streets and they seem to promote lots of weaving. And it's quite annoying if your destination is located between two major freeways, which assuredly means you have make three long rights instead of a simple left. Or three lefts when you'd rather make a single right. In all, they don't seem to reduce highway traffic and congestion, although it does appear that the traffic is diverted somewhat from the arterials.

There's a time and place for them, where a short limited-access road or a grade separation might hinder nearby businesses or other local access...but I can't stand when entire stretches of interstate are dependent on them. I will say they can be convenient for spotting those tall signs in the distance.

Quote from: 3467 on December 22, 2010, 09:47:03 PM
Chicago has few because most of the Expressways were built in rail corridors that allready had limited access points. The Dan Ryan was built next to exisiting streets that became frontage roads like Big Matts Houston example.
The Tollroads were orginally built as bypasses(another discussion) and thus not many interchanges or frontage roads originally.
On I-55 parts of old 66 and its bypasses sort of serve as frontage roads -a rare rural small town example in Illinois

The EOE / Elgin—O'Hare Expressway has some and the new part will have them as well.

I love frontage roads, especially how they work in Michigan and Texas, and follow the roads.  I'm not a big of a fan where they just happen to be there due to placement in the grid, like in Portland or Seattle.  It seems like missed opportunities for growth and lower impact from the freeways.