70 years ago today

[tomv]

On April 12, 1940, Houston mayor Oscar Holcombe announced plans for the Gulf Freeway. The plans included six main lanes and 2 two-lane sections for local traffic. Thus, the "service road" or "frontage road" was born.

Frontage roads would become a standard feature of Houston freeways. Outside of Texas, however, they are not widely used. In Los Angeles, for instance, the freeway capital of the world, they are practically nonexistent.

What would our city look like today without frontage roads? Would our freeways be tree-lined parkways like those in other cities? Where would all the businesses that line our freeways be located?

Erik Slotboom's superb "Houston Freeways" has an interesting discussion of frontage roads in Chapter 2, Freeway Metropolis.

Houston Freeways

[RedScare]

On April 12, 1940, Houston mayor Oscar Holcombe announced plans for the Gulf Freeway. The plans included six main lanes and 2 two-lane sections for local traffic. Thus, the "service road" or "frontage road" was born.

Frontage roads would become a standard feature of Houston freeways. Outside of Texas, however, they are not widely used. In Los Angeles, for instance, the freeway capital of the world, they are practically nonexistent.

What would our city look like today without frontage roads? Would our freeways be tree-lined parkways like those in other cities? Where would all the businesses that line our freeways be located?

Erik Slotboom's superb "Houston Freeways" has an interesting discussion of frontage roads in Chapter 2, Freeway Metropolis.

Houston Freeways

Is that a joke? Other cities' freeways may not have the retail bonanza that ours do, but they are hardly bucolic parkways.

Without feeders, ours would look like this....

For a local version, see the Southwest Freeway inside the loop.

[20thStDad]

Is that a joke? Other cities' freeways may not have the retail bonanza that ours do, but they are hardly bucolic parkways.

Without feeders, ours would look like this....

For a local version, see the Southwest Freeway inside the loop.

I much prefer this picture to the feeder road look. Neither is awesome, but if you gotta have freeways, I'll take mine without endless car dealerships. And trench all of them to reduce neighborhood noise.

[ig2ba]

I much prefer this picture to the feeder road look. Neither is awesome, but if you gotta have freeways, I'll take mine without endless car dealerships. And trench all of them to reduce neighborhood noise.

Trenching is a good idea, but a big caveat in Houston would be "where feasible". And it is probably not feasible to have a lot of trenched freeways here.

First, it's more expensive to build.

Next, there's flooding. Drainage from depressed areas is much more complicated (read: expensive) than from elevated or flat areas. Do we really want to install huge pumps and take away land for detention ponds just for the benefit of reduced noise? I don't think a cost benefit analysis for any freeway in Houston would point towards yes.

Now, if the proposal is to do a cut and cover or a tunnel where you can restore some beneficial use to the topside, it making it into a park or putting businesses on top like in Boston, then I think you can recover more costs. Cut and cover would be even more expensive, especially for a topside non-park option, but there could be great benefits as well. Plus, you could reduce noise even more, reduce air pollution from cars, and depending on the design, have fewer flooding problems than a plain below-grade freeway.

[Fringe]

Trenching is a good idea, but a big caveat in Houston would be "where feasible".  And it is probably not feasible to have a lot of trenched freeways here.

First, it's more expensive to build.

Next, there's flooding.  Drainage from depressed areas is much more complicated (read: expensive) than from elevated or flat areas.  Do we really want to install huge pumps and take away land for detention ponds just for the benefit of reduced noise?  I don't think a cost benefit analysis for any freeway in Houston would point towards yes.

Now, if the proposal is to do a cut and cover or a tunnel where you can restore some beneficial use to the topside, it making it into a park or putting businesses on top like in Boston, then I think you can recover more costs.  Cut and cover would be even more expensive, especially for a topside non-park option, but there could be great benefits as well.  Plus, you could reduce noise even more, reduce air pollution from cars, and depending on the design, have fewer flooding problems than a plain below-grade freeway.

Also emergency access to trenched (as well as raised) areas is greatly reduced. Frontage roads at least provide an alternative for major accidents on the freeways. 

[samagon]

I much prefer this picture to the feeder road look. Neither is awesome, but if you gotta have freeways, I'll take mine without endless car dealerships.

problem is the endless car dealers don't go away, they end up being harder to get to, as are all strip malls that would normally be on the feeder, that are moved to a side street.

the real question you should ask is this: are the endless dealerships a product of feeders, or no zoning? head on over to OC in socal, all the dealers are in a row and set up in specific areas, it is rare for a dealer to be out on their own due to zoning restrictions, not due to a lack of feeder access.

this is hardly the place to discuss zoning and how it's either helped or hindered Houston's image, but I think feeders did little to add to the reason you are you giving for feeders being less awesome.

the concept of improved access resulting from feeders is, imo, far greater than any loss of beautification through having wood lined freeways.

in the example of OC in socal, if you want to go to a best buy, you have to exit the freeway and go through 3 stoplights to get into the parking lot, 5 extra minutes getting from the freeway to the parking lot and then 5 more minutes back again to the freeway. in houston, you just exit the freeway and frantically cross 3 lanes of traffic and some double white lines to make the entrance to the best buy parking lot. direct access. no extra fuel wasted, and while 10 minutes isn't a big deal, what if they don't have everything you need at best buy, and you have to go to target? then you have to go to the grocery store? a shoe store? over the course of a day of shopping, you could waste a whole hour just getting from the freeway to your destination needlessly.

as you can tell, I like my feeders and I really think they add convenience to driving. they may not do much to make things pretty, or not look like a 3 football field wide concrete conduit for cars, but they sure do make life simple on saturdays when I have to do a bunch of shopping for random stuff I can't get at one place.

I guess what I'm saying is that without feeders, the dealerships would still be on the side of the freeway, making it look all ugly, they would just be harder to access.

[rsb320]

When did we start calling them feeders?

And Red, there are feeders on 59 between Shepherd and the Loop.

[TheNiche]

Trenching is a good idea, but a big caveat in Houston would be "where feasible". And it is probably not feasible to have a lot of trenched freeways here.

First, it's more expensive to build.

Next, there's flooding. Drainage from depressed areas is much more complicated (read: expensive) than from elevated or flat areas. Do we really want to install huge pumps and take away land for detention ponds just for the benefit of reduced noise? I don't think a cost benefit analysis for any freeway in Houston would point towards yes.

It strikes me that freeways ought to be trenched in the most flood-prone places. Think of it as a multi-use detention pond. It's better to have a freeway flooded out for a day than it is to have a neighborhood flood for an hour.

Now, if the proposal is to do a cut and cover or a tunnel where you can restore some beneficial use to the topside, it making it into a park or putting businesses on top like in Boston, then I think you can recover more costs. Cut and cover would be even more expensive, especially for a topside non-park option, but there could be great benefits as well. Plus, you could reduce noise even more, reduce air pollution from cars, and depending on the design, have fewer flooding problems than a plain below-grade freeway.

How does cut-and-cover reduce air pollution from cars? Tunnels have to be very well ventilated; otherwise passengers going through them asphyxiate. That can be a problem even in short low-capacity tunnels that don't congest (ex. the old tunnel between La Porte and Baytown).

Also, invoking Boston's "Big Dig" as a justification for anything is generally not a good idea.

[samagon]

When did we start calling them feeders?

And Red, there are feeders on 59 between Shepherd and the Loop.

Who knows when they were first referred to as feeders, but you can always find a Houstonian very easily by seeing whether they call it a feeder or not.

But there are not feeders between Shepherd and i-10. While the sunken part between Shepherd and the 59 spur into midtown is the prettiest stretch of freeway in Houston, after that and all the way to i-10, it is one of the ugliest.

I wouldn't mind seeing the 59/288 interchange area get a tree-lined hillside to replace the concrete hillside. As the area becomes more affluent, that may happen to help reduce road noise, but that is all planning and can be done with or without feeders.

[ig2ba]

It strikes me that freeways ought to be trenched in the most flood-prone places. Think of it as a multi-use detention pond. It's better to have a freeway flooded out for a day than it is to have a neighborhood flood for an hour.

How does cut-and-cover reduce air pollution from cars? Tunnels have to be very well ventilated; otherwise passengers going through them asphyxiate. That can be a problem even in short low-capacity tunnels that don't congest (ex. the old tunnel between La Porte and Baytown).

Also, invoking Boston's "Big Dig" as a justification for anything is generally not a good idea.

You still need to keep the freeway or parallel alternative open for emergency vehicles.

Also, you're thinking of it as either "flood" or "no flood". What about height of water, and likelihood of collecting in certain spots on the road? If cars are driving 45-60 mph in the rain, you really can't have ANY rain collecting on the freeways. Cars would spin out, and there would be accidents very often, if this designed-to-flood roadway started accumulating water during 30-40 rainstorms per year. Think, several times per month, you would basically cripple such a freeway - and it could happen on almost any given day during the summer months. Who would ever take their chances commuting on that thing?

Now think of side streets. There are many more lane miles of sidestreets in the area, and these can hold several inches of water - even in the middle of the street - before they begin to be impassable. People don't drive as fast on these roads either. So while I would prefer to have freeways flood instead of homes, I think side streets flooding (and PARKS!) are better than either option.

You're right that it's not correct to assume emissions will automatically be captured, but in theory, it allows us to limit emissions somewhat. I forget the guy's name (Gonzalo Camacho?), but whoever is touting that I-45 tunnel is claiming this could be done for Houston. I haven't looked at the proposed equipment, so I can't back this up right now. Even without any scrubbing of the air, some of the fine soot will deposit on the walls of the tunnel, which is preferable to the alternative.

Who invoked Big Dig? I don't think it was me.

[ig2ba]

It strikes me that freeways ought to be trenched in the most flood-prone places. Think of it as a multi-use detention pond. It's better to have a freeway flooded out for a day than it is to have a neighborhood flood for an hour.

How does cut-and-cover reduce air pollution from cars? Tunnels have to be very well ventilated; otherwise passengers going through them asphyxiate. That can be a problem even in short low-capacity tunnels that don't congest (ex. the old tunnel between La Porte and Baytown).

Also, invoking Boston's "Big Dig" as a justification for anything is generally not a good idea.

Oh, I see what you meant. I was talking about

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=42.356015,-71.186782&spn=0.002914,0.004812&t=k&z=18

and

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=42.347586,-71.082015&spn=0.011656,0.019248&t=k&z=16

which were not part of the Big Dig.

There are other examples too, but I don't know if the full potential has been reached yet.

[rsb320]

<br />Who knows when they were first referred to as feeders, but you can always find a Houstonian very easily by seeing whether they call it a feeder or not.<br /><br />But there are not feeders between Shepherd and i-10. While the sunken part between Shepherd and the 59 spur into midtown is the prettiest stretch of freeway in Houston, after that and all the way to i-10, it is one of the ugliest.<br /><br />I wouldn't mind seeing the 59/288 interchange area get a tree-lined hillside to replace the concrete hillside. As the area becomes more affluent, that may happen to help reduce road noise, but that is all planning and can be done with or without feeders.<br />

<

br /><br /><br />

From what I can remember, the stretch of 59, from Montrose to 288 is supposed to be sunken at some point. I'd be curious to see if that would eliminate the northbound bottleneck.

[jgriff]

Yes, our freeways are ugly. There is very little hope of changing that in a significant way in our lifetimes. I just avoid them at all costs just like I avoid all the other ugly parts of Houston. This is one reason I would never live in any area where I had to be on I-45 on a regular basis. The ugliness is astounding on 45 North.

[TheNiche]

You still need to keep the freeway or parallel alternative open for emergency vehicles.

Also, you're thinking of it as either "flood" or "no flood". What about height of water, and likelihood of collecting in certain spots on the road? If cars are driving 45-60 mph in the rain, you really can't have ANY rain collecting on the freeways. Cars would spin out, and there would be accidents very often, if this designed-to-flood roadway started accumulating water during 30-40 rainstorms per year. Think, several times per month, you would basically cripple such a freeway - and it could happen on almost any given day during the summer months. Who would ever take their chances commuting on that thing?

Now think of side streets. There are many more lane miles of sidestreets in the area, and these can hold several inches of water - even in the middle of the street - before they begin to be impassable. People don't drive as fast on these roads either. So while I would prefer to have freeways flood instead of homes, I think side streets flooding (and PARKS!) are better than either option.

You're right that it's not correct to assume emissions will automatically be captured, but in theory, it allows us to limit emissions somewhat. I forget the guy's name (Gonzalo Camacho?), but whoever is touting that I-45 tunnel is claiming this could be done for Houston. I haven't looked at the proposed equipment, so I can't back this up right now. Even without any scrubbing of the air, some of the fine soot will deposit on the walls of the tunnel, which is preferable to the alternative.

There was a storm back in about 2004-ish that flooded out the trenched freeways and a lot of feeder roads and major thoroughfares during rush hour. Everything jammed up all over town, TranStar showed dozens of disabled vehicles, and trenched freeways were simply closed off. Emergency vehicles stuck to major thoroughfares and side streets because many of them were still passable, and with sirens on signals and stop signs don't matter...and the fewer vehicles that were in front of them could more effectively move out of the way than could thousands of motorists packed onto a grade-separated roadway.

The next morning, most everything was back to normal.

Obviously there is a need for ensuring that trenched roadways are graded to allow for adequate rates of runoff and obviously it's important to have sumps to keep the water from ponding on the roadway trenched roadways in typical downpours...but when it becomes apparent that a flood event is happening, it's nice that all we have to do is close the freeway and turn off the sumps. I'm not saying that we shouldn't count major thoroughfares and side streets as water detention capacity, but that's flood control of the last resort; immediately after those fill up, you have flooded neighborhoods.

[JamesL]

My two main complaints with feeder roads (aesthetics aside):

1) The resulting development is exceedingly hard to serve with transit.

2) They make crossing the freeway corridor by bike or on foot difficult and dangerous.

[Highway6]

Maybe I was misled... But I have been under the impression that the trenching of 10 and 59 was done in part to alleviate flooding.

Like Niche said... better to lose cars than real property.

Having two secondary bayous that come online when needed to funnel away countless gallons of water.... Sounds smart to me. They are meant to flood.

Another benefit of trenched freeways.. the ramps to/from the feeders now work with the flow of traffic, not against it.

In elevated freeways... you must go downhill as you approach feeder speed.

In trenched freeways... you must go uphill to get to the slower feeder. Obviously uphill is more conducive to slowing your vehicle.

[Original Timmy Chan's]

We should also consider the recreational benefits of trenched freeways!!!

[Hartmann]

While I dislike the idea of feeders everywhere, they do serve a good purpose in certain times. Anyone ever been on an L.A. freeway after a major accident? If you're in a part of town that you do not know, good luck using one of the exits to get around the accident.

Aesthetically speaking, I do like the idea of not having an access road for every inch of freeway, I just think we've become too accustomed to it.

The access roads do create a sort of bundle effect, with businesses popping up on certain corners and creating traffic issues.

[KinkaidAlum]

Freeways are a necessary evil. And, it's true, ours are uglier than normal.

My solution?

Live near work/play and avoid them at all costs. I pretty much only use freeways now to access the airports and to get me out of town.

[Subdude]

While I dislike the idea of feeders everywhere, they do serve a good purpose in certain times. Anyone ever been on an L.A. freeway after a major accident? If you're in a part of town that you do not know, good luck using one of the exits to get around the accident.

Aesthetically speaking, I do like the idea of not having an access road for every inch of freeway, I just think we've become too accustomed to it.

The access roads do create a sort of bundle effect, with businesses popping up on certain corners and creating traffic issues.

All that said, I'm not seeing a lot of other localities rushing to imitate Houston and build feeders. This seems to be the only city in the country where they are considered a good idea.

I agree with you that they create traffic issues. The freeways weren't meant for local trips, but but encouraging business development along the freeways the access roads bring in local trips and thus increase traffic problems for everyone.

[dbigtex56]

Let alone the effect on pedestrians.

We exist. Ever try to frequent a business on a feeder, on foot? It's not pretty.

[Rail]

On April 12, 1940, Houston mayor Oscar Holcombe announced plans for the Gulf Freeway. The plans included six main lanes and 2 two-lane sections for local traffic. Thus, the "service road" or "frontage road" was born.

Frontage roads would become a standard feature of Houston freeways. Outside of Texas, however, they are not widely used. In Los Angeles, for instance, the freeway capital of the world, they are practically nonexistent.

What would our city look like today without frontage roads? Would our freeways be tree-lined parkways like those in other cities? Where would all the businesses that line our freeways be located?

Erik Slotboom's superb "Houston Freeways" has an interesting discussion of frontage roads in Chapter 2, Freeway Metropolis.

Houston Freeways

Where would all the businesses be located? That's easy... where they are now. In Texas, most stretches of interstate highway were brownfield developments. They basically upgraded the respective US highway to interstate standards and put the old US highway lanes on the side as feeder roads. In most of the eastern US, interstates were built as greenfield corridors, meaning that most existing US highways remained surface roads.

Compare Houston's highway network with Atlanta's. Houston has only 3 signed US highways: 90, 290, and 59, but has more freeway center-lane miles than Atlanta primarily because existing US highways and certain state routes were simply upgraded to freeways. In Atlanta, practically every limited access road carries an interstate designation because they were built on completely new routes. The original US highways serving Atlanta remained: 78, 278, 19, 23, 29, and 41. All of these are major 4 or 6 lane arterials that radiate out toward Atlanta's suburbs anywhere from 1 to 5 miles from a parallel interstate. It is on these roads where you'll find those businesses you find along feeder roads in Houston.

Cobb Parkway (US 41 northwest of the city) is a prime example of this.

And here's a picture of that road a couple miles south of the previous picture, looking northbound at the interchange with I-285. Imagine Galveston Road in SW Houston looking like this. That's what would have happened if the Gulf Freeway had been built without feeders.

[Hartmann]

All that said, I'm not seeing a lot of other localities rushing to imitate Houston and build feeders. This seems to be the only city in the country where they are considered a good idea.

I agree with you that they create traffic issues. The freeways weren't meant for local trips, but but encouraging business development along the freeways the access roads bring in local trips and thus increase traffic problems for everyone.

Parts of the Denver freeway system have frontage road businesses, but they appeared to have abandoned it in the new construction.

I think it's more of a Texas thing rather than a Houston thing. Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, and El Paso all have stretches of their freeways with businesses on the access road.

I was in Charlotte not too long ago and noticed that they also have businesses popping up on the access roads.

It really is an interesting study in behavior and traffic and I'd love to see research on benefits/shortcomings.

[tertiary77u]

These are just few of the things that the government should be looking deeper into. Freeways are big help for everybody, we just have to know our responsibilities.

[samagon]

But the thing of it is, businesses do turn up next to the freeways, whether there are feeders or not. Do a google maps for Irvine Spectrum. where i5 and 405 meet. then head up i5 to jamboree, there are no feeders in Orange County, they have horrible traffic, and all sorts of malls, strip malls, and shopping centers just a freeway exit away, not to mention crappy looking office buildings line the sides of the freeways in places.

The difference is that instead of running parallel to the freeways and being distributed in that way, they run along the horizontal side streets, and are packed as close to the freeway as possible, but you are still at least 1 stoplight away from getting to your destination. Or even worse than that, they run on a parallel side street to the freeway.

And we do have large businesses built up on hwy 6, and major congestion as a result, if I was at 59 and hwy6 and wanted to get to 290 and hwy 6, I'd drive up 59 to the BW and take it up to 290. Maybe even eldridge, but that isn't much better in spots.

The example of Atlanta is horrible, as their traffic is as bad, or worse than ours.

[TheNiche]

And here's a picture of that road a couple miles south of the previous picture, looking northbound at the interchange with I-285. Imagine Galveston Road in SW Houston looking like this. That's what would have happened if the Gulf Freeway had been built without feeders.

To simplify your point, I think that it's safe to say that all these businesses whose layout clutter our feeder roads still exist in other cities, just that they concentrate on the next best alternative, which are major thoroughfares. The blight remains, only commuters coming into town from the far-out exurbs don't have to see it; only the community of people that live or work in the neighborhood have to put up with it.

[TheNiche]

Let alone the effect on pedestrians.

We exist. Ever try to frequent a business on a feeder, on foot? It's not pretty.

Most of the businesses on feeder roads aren't exactly pedestrian-friendly, either. ...and if it's an office building outside of a major business district, then there's sort of a built-in expectation by planners that you have a car, whether it's next to a feeder or not.

[dbigtex56]

Most of the businesses on feeder roads aren't exactly pedestrian-friendly, either. ...and if it's an office building outside of a major business district, then there's sort of a built-in expectation by planners that you have a car, whether it's next to a feeder or not.

Exactly. For once, we agree.

So, how come this idiocy is still allowed - or permitted, in the sense of a city permit?

Does the ADA not apply to Houston?

[samagon]

Imagine Galveston Road in SW Houston looking like this. That's what would have happened if the Gulf Freeway had been built without feeders.

one thing I remembered yesterday as I drove down highway 3 to head to my nearest entry point for i45, there's a railroad track that goes along the side of this road for almost its entire length, whether there were feeders on 45 or not, this would severely hamper any buildup of consumer businesses on hwy3.

[Fringe]

Most of the businesses on feeder roads aren't exactly pedestrian-friendly, either.  ...and if it's an office building outside of a major business district, then there's sort of a built-in expectation by planners that you have a car, whether it's next to a feeder or not.

I'm sure the last thing on any business' mind built along a freeway is pedestrians. 

Does the ADA not apply to Houston?

What? You haven't noticed all  the handicap parking spaces in front of stores?