Frontage roads before freeway?

[roadcrazed]

I live in Texas, and I've noticed an interesting trend that's been happening around here for a while. It seems like on a lot of new or expanded highways, the frontage roads are built first, and then the freeway is built many years later. One particular example of this is S.H. 114 going through Roanoke, Texas. For a few miles, there's continuous access roads with a massive empty right-of-way in-between them (Google Maps link). Right now, the portion of the highway west of I-35 is being upgraded from a two-lane road to a pair of access roads. Also, on the eastern side of this stretch, the freeway portion is being extended westward towards Roanoke. I'm not sure I like this concept or not, but here's a good picture of what I mean:


You can see the massive space in-between the two roads where a freeway should be. I'm not sure I like the way this was done or not, seeing as traffic can get really bad through here with all of the stoplights. However, I still find it fascinating.

[StogieGuy7]

Yes, I know what you mean and i recall that portions of the Sam Houston Tollway (TX 8) were constructed in this manner with the frontage roads being present many years before the actual limited-access freeway was constructed in the center.  It's an interesting idea to me and i have mixed feelings about the concept.  On the one hand, it does open up the corridor MUCH more quickly, but it also seems to cause traffic issues as vehicles have to exit the freeway to surface streets for those incomplete segments.  Still, it does seem to work.

On the whole, I think it's a very good idea and i do like it - but it's not perfect.  As most states do not have the same types of one-way frontage roads as Texas, this is not something that you see in most of the US.   A number of states do employ frontage roads, but they're two-way more often than not.  Which, to me, defeats the purpose. 

[NE2]

Houston's Crosby Freeway is an interesting case. They built it as a full freeway, but between some overpasses the main lanes curve out and merge into the frontage roads. Example: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=29.82296,-95.194108&spn=0.016978,0.033023&t=k&z=16 Both the Goog and OSM ended up not showing it as a full freeway.

[roadcrazed]

Yes, I know what you mean and i recall that portions of the Sam Houston Tollway (TX 8) were constructed in this manner with the frontage roads being present many years before the actual limited-access freeway was constructed in the center.  It's an interesting idea to me and i have mixed feelings about the concept.  On the one hand, it does open up the corridor MUCH more quickly, but it also seems to cause traffic issues as vehicles have to exit the freeway to surface streets for those incomplete segments.  Still, it does seem to work.

On the whole, I think it's a very good idea and i do like it - but it's not perfect.  As most states do not have the same types of one-way frontage roads as Texas, this is not something that you see in most of the US.   A number of states do employ frontage roads, but they're two-way more often than not.  Which, to me, defeats the purpose.

Frontage roads are so common in Texas that I'm convinced that there's more frontage roads that actual freeways...hah. The frontage road configuration here worked fine once it was first built in 2002 or so, but growth has exploded so much in the area that the traffic has gotten really bad over the past few years. On westbound 114 you can be driving smoothly for miles on the freeway, but when the freeway ends, it's a disaster. I don't understand why they chose to end the freeway where they did. You have to exit right before a signalized intersection, and right afterwards is a big highway interchange. Traffic always gets backed up for at least a mile at that red light. If they would have made the freeway just a mile longer, there would be no problem. At least they're fixing it now.

So I guess it's fine to build the frontage roads long before the freeway, as long as they finish it before traffic becomes a huge problem (which definitely didn't happen in this case).

[roadcrazed]

Houston's Crosby Freeway is an interesting case. They built it as a full freeway, but between some overpasses the main lanes curve out and merge into the frontage roads. Example: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=29.82296,-95.194108&spn=0.016978,0.033023&t=k&z=16 Both the Goog and OSM ended up not showing it as a full freeway.

That's really interesting. It looks like a pretty good stopgap solution to me, though. That way, through traffic doesn't get backed up at the intersections like it does on 114 now.

[amroad17]

Isn't TX 170 north of Ft. Worth built in this way?

[roadfro]

The southwestern segment of the Las Vegas Beltway (Clark County Route 215) between I-15 and Tropicana Avenue was constructed in this manner. The one-way frontage roads were built first as the initial facility on the outskirts of the right of way, then the freeway was constructed in between later on.

Drivers tended to ignore the 45mph speed limit and treated the frontage roads as a freeway, traveling well above 65mph in many cases. This led to many accidents at the cross streets, as drivers often ran signals or crashed into vehicles stopped. Even the installation of "prepare to stop when flashing" warning beacons on the intersection approaches did not decrease the accidents all that much... Many commuters were quite relieved to get the full freeway built through there.

[roadcrazed]

Isn't TX 170 north of Ft. Worth built in this way?

Yes, unfortunately. 114 intersects with 170, so it's basically a big highway interchange with only frontage roads and controlled by a stoplight. It's a traffic nightmare. At least they're turning it into a freeway interchange now.

The southwestern segment of the Las Vegas Beltway (Clark County Route 215) between I-15 and Tropicana Avenue was constructed in this manner. The one-way frontage roads were built first as the initial facility on the outskirts of the right of way, then the freeway was constructed in between later on.

Drivers tended to ignore the 45mph speed limit and treated the frontage roads as a freeway, traveling well above 65mph in many cases. This led to many accidents at the cross streets, as drivers often ran signals or crashed into vehicles stopped. Even the installation of "prepare to stop when flashing" warning beacons on the intersection approaches did not decrease the accidents all that much... Many commuters were quite relieved to get the full freeway built through there.

Luckily that doesn't happen around here, but then again, the speed limit on 114 is 60. However, the portion of 114 west of I-35W is terrible. It's the main road that does into Texas Motor Speedway but it's only two lanes. It's pretty much necessary to avoid the entire area on the weekends with NASCAR races. I don't see why they didn't expand the road when they built TMS 15 years ago.

[texaskdog]

A very Texas thing.    US 183 in North Austin was built that way.

[US81]

Definitely a Texas thing, one I can remember noting from my earliest road-geek childhood.

[Henry]

Wouldn't the inner-city streets count? Most, if not all, urban freeways would have been built within a couplet of one-way streets, especially if they're close to the downtown area.

[Darkchylde]

The non-freeway segment of US 90 Business near New Orleans is like this - the freeway empties out onto the service roads, with a wide right-of-way in the median for the future expansion.

[Alps]

US 71, Kansas City
MO 364, St. Louis

[roadman65]

In Laredo, TX if I-35 was actually extended to the International Border Crossing, the two streets that make up the Breezewood between the southern terminus and the Bridge Plaza would become frontage roads.
.
Then you have Lawrence Street and Grove Street in Perth Amboy, NJ that are frontage roads to the 440 freeway that were originally NJ 440 itself before the freeway was completed.

Part of where Fabyan Place in Newark, NJ that is frontage road to I-78 was always an existing street. In fact, the Valley Fair store on the opposite side of I-78 from Fabyan, used to front it, as I-78 took away some of the store's parking lot.

Eisenhower Boulevard in Tampa, that is frontage to FL 589, was there before FL 589.  In fact FL 589 was indeed Eisenhower Boulevard prior to the freeway construction.

McCoy Road in Orlando, FL was there before FL 528 and was reduced from four lanes to two when the Beachline was built that now carries FL 528 with McCoy being the Northside frontage road in three segments between FL 482 and FL 15.

[Brandon]

Wouldn't the inner-city streets count? Most, if not all, urban freeways would have been built within a couplet of one-way streets, especially if they're close to the downtown area.

True, but they were usually built with, not before the freeway.

[Compulov]

Not frontage roads, but several sections of the AZ Loop 303 were built on what look like future exit/entrance ramps between Happy Valley Parkway and I-17. You can see where the road leaves the center wide concrete and has a narrower carriageway with no shoulders in those sections. They seem to be around every mile or so (which is in-line with how interchanges with surface streets are spaced in metro Phoenix). I'm assuming this means they can build overpasses in the median when they're ready to build an actual interchange without affecting the flow of the freeway itself with lane shifts and such.

[Duke87]

Not unique to the western US. Here's a couple places in the northeast where a pair of frontage roads were built with clearing between them... for a freeway which, decades later, still has not been built and probably never will be:

Conduit Blvd/Ave, Brooklyn/Queens, part of cancelled Nassau/Bushwick Expressways (I-78)
N./S. Frontage Rd, New Haven, for cancelled CT 34 expressway

[roadcrazed]

Not unique to the western US. Here's a couple places in the northeast where a pair of frontage roads were built with clearing between them... for a freeway which, decades later, still has not been built and probably never will be:

Conduit Blvd/Ave, Brooklyn/Queens, part of cancelled Nassau/Bushwick Expressways (I-78)
N./S. Frontage Rd, New Haven, for cancelled CT 34 expressway

In that second example it looks like they actually built businesses and parking garages between the two frontage roads. I guess the department of transportation gave up all hopes of finishing the freeway and sold off the land? Interesting.

[NE2]

The older parking garage to the east actually has provisions to put the freeway underneath. (But yes, it's dead, and they're currently removing the part west of the railroad overpass.)

[FreewayDan]

California 55 in Costa Mesa (mainly south of California 73 freeway) was built in between frontage roads, which are signed as Newport Boulevard.  California 73 between Jamboree Road and Red Hill Avenue (if I'm not mistaken) was built this way too, with the frontage roads signed as Bristol Street.

[Brian556]

I dislike this way of doing things. Frontage roads are not intended to carry high-speed through traffic. they are designed to carry lower-speed traffic. When this configuration is used,it causes problems. These problems include lack of turn lanes, even for left turns, which is a major hazard. Also, there are many places that are "jerry-rigged" with temporary, substandard setups that make driving difficult. On SH 114 in Trophy Club, the westbound SH 170 split was never signed properly, and drivers had no notification that the left lane of SH 114 became an exit only lane of SH 170, and the right lane of the merging frontage road became the SH 114 right lane. Also, after that, there was a curve that was substandardly sharp for a state highway, and not banked properly, which led to many accidents.

Also, here's some food for thought. SH 114 and US 377 were grade separated in 1941 when US 377 moved from Oak St to beside the tracks. The current setup is a regression of progress because US 377 and SH 114 once again cross at grade. And, guess what, it's causing problems.

TxDOT has been doing this for many years. There is a picture floating around somewhere of SH 183 at the I-35E split when it had this configuaration.

US 77 in Corinth was not done this way. A second carrigeway was completed in 1953, making it a divided highway. Later, frontage roads and overpasses were built, making it a freeway by 1961. I think i like this approach better.

[roadman65]

I dislike this way of doing things. Frontage roads are not intended to carry high-speed through traffic. they are designed to carry lower-speed traffic. When this configuration is used,it causes problems. These problems include lack of turn lanes, even for left turns, which is a major hazard. Also, there are many places that are "jerry-rigged" with temporary, substandard setups that make driving difficult. On SH 114 in Trophy Club, the westbound SH 170 split was never signed properly, and drivers had no notification that the left lane of SH 114 became an exit only lane of SH 170, and the right lane of the merging frontage road became the SH 114 right lane. Also, after that, there was a curve that was substandardly sharp for a state highway, and not banked properly, which led to many accidents.

Also, here's some food for thought. SH 114 and US 377 were grade separated in 1941 when US 377 moved from Oak St to beside the tracks. The current setup is a regression of progress because US 377 and SH 114 once again cross at grade. And, guess what, it's causing problems.

TxDOT has been doing this for many years. There is a picture floating around somewhere of SH 183 at the I-35E split when it had this configuaration.

US 77 in Corinth was not done this way. A second carrigeway was completed in 1953, making it a divided highway. Later, frontage roads and overpasses were built, making it a freeway by 1961. I think i like this approach better.

I am assuming that the reason for interstate frontage roads to STILL have 55 mph speed limits?  I noticed that despite Texas allowing 70 mph speed limits on even farm or ranch roads, that they will not raise the limit on these type of roadways.

[mgk920]

I dislike this way of doing things. Frontage roads are not intended to carry high-speed through traffic. they are designed to carry lower-speed traffic. When this configuration is used,it causes problems. These problems include lack of turn lanes, even for left turns, which is a major hazard. Also, there are many places that are "jerry-rigged" with temporary, substandard setups that make driving difficult. On SH 114 in Trophy Club, the westbound SH 170 split was never signed properly, and drivers had no notification that the left lane of SH 114 became an exit only lane of SH 170, and the right lane of the merging frontage road became the SH 114 right lane. Also, after that, there was a curve that was substandardly sharp for a state highway, and not banked properly, which led to many accidents.

Also, here's some food for thought. SH 114 and US 377 were grade separated in 1941 when US 377 moved from Oak St to beside the tracks. The current setup is a regression of progress because US 377 and SH 114 once again cross at grade. And, guess what, it's causing problems.

TxDOT has been doing this for many years. There is a picture floating around somewhere of SH 183 at the I-35E split when it had this configuaration.

US 77 in Corinth was not done this way. A second carrigeway was completed in 1953, making it a divided highway. Later, frontage roads and overpasses were built, making it a freeway by 1961. I think i like this approach better.

I am assuming that the reason for interstate frontage roads to STILL have 55 mph speed limits?  I noticed that despite Texas allowing 70 mph speed limits on even farm or ranch roads, that they will not raise the limit on these type of roadways.

There is one BIG reason why I like doing it that way, and I have mentioned this before in this and other forvms - it establishes the corridor before anything else is there so that when the development has arrived and the need for the freeway has become apparent, it can be easily built between the frontage roads with little, if any, resistance from the locals.



Mike

[roadcrazed]

I dislike this way of doing things. Frontage roads are not intended to carry high-speed through traffic. they are designed to carry lower-speed traffic. When this configuration is used,it causes problems. These problems include lack of turn lanes, even for left turns, which is a major hazard. Also, there are many places that are "jerry-rigged" with temporary, substandard setups that make driving difficult. On SH 114 in Trophy Club, the westbound SH 170 split was never signed properly, and drivers had no notification that the left lane of SH 114 became an exit only lane of SH 170, and the right lane of the merging frontage road became the SH 114 right lane. Also, after that, there was a curve that was substandardly sharp for a state highway, and not banked properly, which led to many accidents.

Also, here's some food for thought. SH 114 and US 377 were grade separated in 1941 when US 377 moved from Oak St to beside the tracks. The current setup is a regression of progress because US 377 and SH 114 once again cross at grade. And, guess what, it's causing problems.

TxDOT has been doing this for many years. There is a picture floating around somewhere of SH 183 at the I-35E split when it had this configuaration.

US 77 in Corinth was not done this way. A second carrigeway was completed in 1953, making it a divided highway. Later, frontage roads and overpasses were built, making it a freeway by 1961. I think i like this approach better.

I am assuming that the reason for interstate frontage roads to STILL have 55 mph speed limits?  I noticed that despite Texas allowing 70 mph speed limits on even farm or ranch roads, that they will not raise the limit on these type of roadways.

There is one BIG reason why I like doing it that way, and I have mentioned this before in this and other forvms - it establishes the corridor before anything else is there so that when the development has arrived and the need for the freeway has become apparent, it can be easily built between the frontage roads with little, if any, resistance from the locals.



Mike

You're right about it establishing a corridor, but it seems like whenever a highway is done in this configuration it takes forever for the freeway to actually be built (if it's even built at all). Take SH 360 in Mansfield, for example. If I'm not mistaken, this highway has had only access roads for at least 15 years. I'm not around there often, but I hear that traffic is pretty bad and is a serious quality of life detriment to the locals. I'm guessing TxDOT couldn't afford the expansion project, so 360 is going to become a toll road in a few years. Same with 170.
It works out when they actually do build the freeway when it's needed, but sometimes that's not the case. If all of these types of roads are going to become toll roads, then I'm not for it.

[vdeane]

Would you rather they build a regular surface street and then be unable to build the freeway due to development/NIMBYs once it's needed?  That's what typically happens.