FRONTAGE ROADS IN TEXAS: A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT

A policy of building frontage roads alongside freeway mainlanes avoids the purchase of access rights when upgrading existing highways to freeway standards, and generally supplements local street networks. It also may affect corridor operations, land values, and development patterns. This paper seeks to provide a comprehensive evaluation of frontage road design policies by summarizing research results related to legal statutes affecting public access to roadways, discussing access policies and practices across the states, comparing land development and operations of corridors with and without frontage roads, summarizing studies on access-right valuation, and evaluating construction cost distinctions. A literature review concluded that a wide variety of options are available to agencies for limiting access to and improving flow and safety along freeway corridors. Statistical analyses of paired corridors suggested that land near frontage roads is associated with lower household incomes, lower population densities, lower percentages of bike trips to work, lower vehicle occupancies for work trips, and higher unemployment rates than those without frontage roads. Lower employment densities along freeway corridors also emerged when frontage roads were present. Operational simulations of various freeway systems demonstrated that frontage roads may improve the operation of freeway mainlanes in heavily developed areas, but not in moderately developed areas (e.g., purely residential). Arterial systems in these simulations were supplemented by frontage roads and thus also performed better in their presence. The financial costs associated with frontage-road facilities were found to be considerably higher than those associated with non-frontage-road facilities, except in cases of extremely high access-right values. It is hoped that these results, in addition to efforts by other researchers, will assist in constructing a solid, formal policy for all states and regions to follow in providing access along new and existing freeways in the decades to come.

[1]  H. Levinson,et al.  ACCESS MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN CONNECTICUT , 1996 .

[2]  P D Pant,et al.  METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ACCESS MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES , 1998 .

[3]  Kay Fitzpatrick,et al.  ONE-SIDED WEAVING OPERATIONS ON ONE-WAY FRONTAGE ROADS , 1996 .

[4]  Robert H Whitson,et al.  A real-time frontage road progression analysis and control strategy , 1974 .

[5]  R. Machemehl,et al.  A MODEL FOR ESTIMATING THE VALUE OF PROPERTY ACCESS RIGHTS. FINAL REPORT , 1995 .

[6]  D L Bowman,et al.  ACCESS MANAGEMENT: TRANSPORTATION POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR A GROWING VIRGINIA , 1998 .

[7]  H. Kaltenbach.  THE ELASTIC RIGHT - ACCESS , 1967 .

[8]  Kristine M Williams.  TEN WAYS TO MANAGE ROADWAY ACCESS IN YOUR COMMUNITY , 2000 .

[9]  Kara M. Kockelman.  Investigation of the Impact of Frontage Roads as an Element of Controlled Access Facilities , 2002 .

[10]  H L Westerman.  ROADS AND ENVIRONMENTS , 1990 .

[11]  Brian L Bowman,et al.  EFFECT OF URBAN AND SUBURBAN MEDIAN TYPES ON BOTH VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY , 1994 .

[12]  Michael David Lloyd.  Assessment of TRAF-NETSIM for analyzing arterial weaving between ramp terminals and cross streets , 1995 .

[13]  A. Eisdorfer.  NEW JERSEY STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS MANAGEMENT CODE TO PRESERVE CORRIDOR ACCESSIBILITY AND MANAGE ECONOMIC GROWTH , 1997 .

[14]  H. D. Vorster,et al.  ACCESS MANAGEMENT IN PRACTICE: THE PRETORIA EXPERIENCE , 1997 .

[15]  P. Newsome.  ACCESS MANAGEMENT - DOCUMENTING PRACTICES EXTERNAL TO MINNESOTA , 1997 .

[16]  Ross D. Netherton.  Control of highway access , 1963 .

[17]  Jerry Gluck,et al.  AN OVERVIEW OF ACCESS MANAGEMENT AT SELECTED STATE DOTS , 1996 .

[18]  A H Parham,et al.  PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE FRONTAGE ROAD LEVEL OF SERVICE AND RAMP SPACING , 1996 .

[19]  J C Vance.  RIGHTS OF ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER UPON CONVERSION OF UNCONTROLLED-ACCESS ROAD INTO LIMITED-ACCESS HIGHWAY , 1987 .

[20]  Kristine M Williams,et al.  LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT PROMOTE ACCESS MANAGEMENT , 1996 .

[21]  C J Messer,et al.  DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR RAMP METERING. INTERIM REPORT , 1994 .

[22]  Young-Jun Kweon,et al.  Overall injury risk to different drivers: combining exposure, frequency, and severity models. , 2003, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[23]  G Long,et al.  SAFETY IMPACTS OF SELECTED MEDIAN AND ACCESS DESIGN FEATURES. FINAL REPORT , 1993 .

[24]  G. Sokolow,et al.  MODEL LAND DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS THAT SUPPORT ACCESS MANAGEMENT FOR FLORIDA CITIES AND COUNTIES , 1994 .

[25]  L. Kors.  ACCESS MANAGEMENT PROJECT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA , 1996 .

[26]  A. Williams.  Transport, rights-of-way and compensation: injurious affection from an economic perspective and some Australian evidence of freeway impacts; part II , 1993 .

[27]  J M Mounce,et al.  CONSIDERATIONS IN THE APPLICATION OF COLLECTOR-DISTRIBUTOR DESIGNS FOR IMPROVING MAINLANE FREEWAY OPERATIONS. INTERIM REPORT , 1992 .

[28]  J A Crawford,et al.  Corridor Preservation: A Review of Strategies for Texas , 1996 .

[29]  S. Vadali,et al.  LAND VALUE AND LAND USE EFFECTS OF ELEVATED, DEPRESSED, AND AT-GRADE LEVEL FREEWAYS IN TEXAS , 1997 .

[30]  R W Stokes.  CORRIDOR PRESERVATION FOR TWO-LANE RURAL HIGHWAYS , 1995 .