Road Projects designed to solve one problem but upon completion causes a new one

[Brandon]

The "fix" to the Hillside Strangler (I-290, I-294, I-88 merge).  The backup used to be west of Mannheim (US-12/20/45).  Now it's merely east of Mannheim.

Sounds a lot like the Crosstown Commons fix on MN 62. The major headache in the old interchange began with the eastbound drop to one lane at Lyndale. The rebuild moved the lane drop east of 35W to Portland Avenue instead. What really changes?

The OP appears to be looking for new problems that cropped up from a given road project.  Both the Crosstown Commons and Hillside Strangler references are cases where a problem remains, but isn't as large a problem as it was before.  I'm not aware of any "new" problems that have cropped up with the Crosstown Commons.

I'll beg to differ with you on the Hillside Strangler.  The problem remains, and is just as big as it was before the "fix".

[froggie]

The "fix" to the Hillside Strangler (I-290, I-294, I-88 merge).  The backup used to be west of Mannheim (US-12/20/45).  Now it's merely east of Mannheim.

I'll beg to differ with you on the Hillside Strangler.  The problem remains, and is just as big as it was before the "fix".

So which is it?


Now, something that you didn't say anything about earlier:  are there any *NEW* problems created by the Hillside "fix"?  That would be more along the lines of what the OP was looking for.

[hotdogPi]

The "fix" to the Hillside Strangler (I-290, I-294, I-88 merge).  The backup used to be west of Mannheim (US-12/20/45).  Now it's merely east of Mannheim.

I'll beg to differ with you on the Hillside Strangler.  The problem remains, and is just as big as it was before the "fix".

So which is it?

There's no contradiction there. The backup moved from one location to another without getting smaller.

[JasonOfORoads]

Just a prediction:

The phase 1 of the Newberg-Dundee bypass is opening soon and I don't think it will solve much congestion, but instead move the problem earlier. This is due to signals being on both ends of the bypass, it narrowing back down to 2 lanes west of Dundee, when it connects back up with the main highway. (which is part of the ORIGINAL problem), and just to get to the bypass, on the east end, you need to take a surface street for a mile and a half (with three signals) and then make a left turn on a state highway, then you can get on it.

Phase 2 at least will solve the east ends problems.

I had this exact same thought. While there's no real way to avoid problems at the bypass' northern end (since the intersection with OR-219 will become an interchange one day), it was stupid of ODOT to build a left turn signal to get onto the bypass at the southern end. It should've been partial interchange, with traffic entering the bypass northbound via an onramp on the right for smooth traffic flow. Similarly, southbound traffic would only be given the option of going south, merging onto OR-99W south on the right. Any traffic that wants to go to downtown Dundee needs to just avoid the bypass altogether until it's complete.

The only way ODOT could attempt to mitigate the mess they've made now is to ensure that the new traffic light needs to prioritize northbound traffic going straight and turning left. As in, the left turn signal needs to be on for a minute, maybe two, in addition to the green light for OR-99W north traffic. Additionally, a green right arrow needs to be lit for that same amount of time for all traffic coming off the bypass at that location. The OR-99W south green light would be 30 seconds tops, since it would only impact local traffic.

But let's see how ODOT screws this up now.

[Beltway]

The two big ones that immediately come to mind in the D.C area have to be:
1. The I-95 widening project that widened the highway from six to eight lanes from Exit 166 in Newignton south to Exit 160 in Woodbridge(2010).
2. The I-95 HOT lane project that moved the HOV lane bottleneck in Dumfries nine miles south to Garrisonville(2014). Both projects spent hundreds of millions of dollars to fix a bottleneck, ended up just moving it south, and in both cases made it even worse.

I find both of them to be substantial improvements to traffic conditions when I use the road.  Northbound you get the wider roadway sooner.  I-95 with 4+ general purpose lanes in Fairfax County, and the I-95 HOT lanes extending further to the south.  Of course, both features need to be extended further south, the HOT lanes to Massaponax, and the 4 general purpose lanes to I-295.

Moving the fouth lane terminus to Woodbridge made the southbound bottleneck even worse because now not only does I-95 lose a lane, but there is also the additional burden of having southbound US-1 and both directions of VA-123 also merge onto I-95(both these highways get backed up considerably too). Prince William County has been begging VDOT to do something about it for years. On weekends I-95 northbound gets backed up there too(though for less of a clear reason). If the I-95 HOT terminus right before Garrisonville exit wasn't any worse than the old HOV terminus at Dumfries, than why did VDOT and Transburban immediately have to spend $50 million to extend the lanes 2 miles further south after the Garrisonville exit? While I agree the HOT lanes need to go to Massaponax and 4 general purpose lanes need to go to I-295, I highly doubt either will happen anytime soon.

Well, no, I disagree; based on my experiences I would not want to go back to when the 4th lanes ended at Springfield, or when the reversible roadway ended at Dumfries. 

Congestion is not a static entity, we need to look at the 24/7/365 performance of the highway.  These capacity increases extended to where I-95 volumes are lower, and there are clear benefits to both projects over the whole timespans.  The claim that these projects were intended "to fix a bottleneck" is not really true, they were to provide additional capacity and general traffic relief, and also additional traffic options in the case of the HOT lanes.  The 2-mile extension of the reversible roadway provided a second connection to the general purpose roadway, and provided the benefit of bypassing the VA-610 Garrisonville interchange.

[Jmiles32]

The two big ones that immediately come to mind in the D.C area have to be:
1. The I-95 widening project that widened the highway from six to eight lanes from Exit 166 in Newignton south to Exit 160 in Woodbridge(2010).
2. The I-95 HOT lane project that moved the HOV lane bottleneck in Dumfries nine miles south to Garrisonville(2014). Both projects spent hundreds of millions of dollars to fix a bottleneck, ended up just moving it south, and in both cases made it even worse.

I find both of them to be substantial improvements to traffic conditions when I use the road.  Northbound you get the wider roadway sooner.  I-95 with 4+ general purpose lanes in Fairfax County, and the I-95 HOT lanes extending further to the south.  Of course, both features need to be extended further south, the HOT lanes to Massaponax, and the 4 general purpose lanes to I-295.

Moving the fouth lane terminus to Woodbridge made the southbound bottleneck even worse because now not only does I-95 lose a lane, but there is also the additional burden of having southbound US-1 and both directions of VA-123 also merge onto I-95(both these highways get backed up considerably too). Prince William County has been begging VDOT to do something about it for years. On weekends I-95 northbound gets backed up there too(though for less of a clear reason). If the I-95 HOT terminus right before Garrisonville exit wasn't any worse than the old HOV terminus at Dumfries, than why did VDOT and Transburban immediately have to spend $50 million to extend the lanes 2 miles further south after the Garrisonville exit? While I agree the HOT lanes need to go to Massaponax and 4 general purpose lanes need to go to I-295, I highly doubt either will happen anytime soon.

Well, no, I disagree; based on my experiences I would not want to go back to when the 4th lanes ended at Springfield, or when the reversible roadway ended at Dumfries. 

Congestion is not a static entity, we need to look at the 24/7/365 performance of the highway.  These capacity increases extended to where I-95 volumes are lower, and there are clear benefits to both projects over the whole timespans.  The claim that these projects were intended "to fix a bottleneck" is not really true, they were to provide additional capacity and general traffic relief, and also additional traffic options in the case of the HOT lanes.  The 2-mile extension of the reversible roadway provided a second connection to the general purpose roadway, and provided the benefit of bypassing the VA-610 Garrisonville interchange.

I understand your point about increasing capacity and yes in that regard, I am extremely thankful for both projects. However in terms of the OP, both projects sought to address a lack of capacity on I-95 in which as a result of accomplishing that, created new bottleneck problems considerably worse than what existed before.

[Revive 755]

Couple in the St. Louis area:

* I've heard the addition of the fifth lane to I-270 between MO 100/Manchester Road and I-44 moved north to the end of the fifth lane at MO 100 in the AM and to the section between I-44 and I-55 in the PM.

* After completion of the two lane ramp for I-55 SB from the PSB, WB I-44 is backing up through the Depressed Section

[Buffaboy]

The infamous kneejerk downgrade of NY-198 comes to mind.

[Beltway]

Congestion is not a static entity, we need to look at the 24/7/365 performance of the highway.  These capacity increases extended to where I-95 volumes are lower, and there are clear benefits to both projects over the whole timespans.  The claim that these projects were intended "to fix a bottleneck" is not really true, they were to provide additional capacity and general traffic relief, and also additional traffic options in the case of the HOT lanes.  The 2-mile extension of the reversible roadway provided a second connection to the general purpose roadway, and provided the benefit of bypassing the VA-610 Garrisonville interchange.

I understand your point about increasing capacity and yes in that regard, I am extremely thankful for both projects. However in terms of the OP, both projects sought to address a lack of capacity on I-95 in which as a result of accomplishing that, created new bottleneck problems considerably worse than what existed before.

Based on my usages, I just don't agree with the last statement.  Like I said, "Congestion is not a static entity, we need to look at the 24/7/365 performance of the highway."  Same thing with respect to "bottlenecks".  The 24/7/365 performance of the highway is significantly improved as a result.  I have regularly benefitted from the 4th laning and the extended HOT lanes.

[Joe The Dragon]

The "fix" to the Hillside Strangler (I-290, I-294, I-88 merge).  The backup used to be west of Mannheim (US-12/20/45).  Now it's merely east of Mannheim.

I'll beg to differ with you on the Hillside Strangler.  The problem remains, and is just as big as it was before the "fix".

it moved stuff at least you can easily exit at Mannheim with just the ramp light wait at peak times. Now the next stage needs to be done. The I-294 work will fix other issues.

So which is it?

There's no contradiction there. The backup moved from one location to another without getting smaller.

[Jmiles32]

Like I said, "Congestion is not a static entity, we need to look at the 24/7/365 performance of the highway."  Same thing with respect to "bottlenecks".  The 24/7/365 performance of the highway is significantly improved as a result.  I have regularly benefitted from the 4th laning and the extended HOT lanes.

Even if the average 24/7/365 performance of I-95 has improved in terms of greater capacity, I argue that from a safety perspective, I-95 has not improved. The merging and weaving at Woodbridge(especially) and Garrisonville, 24/7/365 seems to be far more dangerous and accident-prone(even during off-peak hours)than the previous merging and weaving ever was at Newington and Dumfries.

[Beltway]

Like I said, "Congestion is not a static entity, we need to look at the 24/7/365 performance of the highway."  Same thing with respect to "bottlenecks".  The 24/7/365 performance of the highway is significantly improved as a result.  I have regularly benefitted from the 4th laning and the extended HOT lanes.

Even if the average 24/7/365 performance of I-95 has improved in terms of greater capacity, I argue that from a safety perspective, I-95 has not improved. The merging and weaving at Woodbridge(especially) and Garrisonville, 24/7/365 is on average more dangerous and accident-prone(even during off-peak hours)than the previous merging and weaving ever was at Newington and Dumfries.

Do you have some data to back up those broad sweeping assertions?  You know, accident data is tabulated on highways and it can be analyzed and reported on.

[Jmiles32]

Like I said, "Congestion is not a static entity, we need to look at the 24/7/365 performance of the highway."  Same thing with respect to "bottlenecks".  The 24/7/365 performance of the highway is significantly improved as a result.  I have regularly benefitted from the 4th laning and the extended HOT lanes.

Even if the average 24/7/365 performance of I-95 has improved in terms of greater capacity, I argue that from a safety perspective, I-95 has not improved. The merging and weaving at Woodbridge(especially) and Garrisonville, 24/7/365 is on average more dangerous and accident-prone(even during off-peak hours)than the previous merging and weaving ever was at Newington and Dumfries.

Do you have some data to back up those broad sweeping assertions?  You know, accident data is tabulated on highways and it can be analyzed and reported on.

I don't so I apologize for sounding more factual than I intended to be. My final point is that from a safety perspective looking at the I-95 widening project, it would appear that ending the southbound fourth lane right in the middle of where US-1 and VA-123 also drop off heavy traffic, would result in more of a risk of accidents than having it end at the previously less hectic Newington interchange(I don't even think the Fairfax County Parkway was complete yet at the time either). IMO the wiser decision would have been to have the fourth lane end one exit further south at the Prince William Parkway, where far more southbound I-95 traffic gets off. If you have any specific data that either contradicts or supports my earlier statements I'd be very interested in seeing it.

[Beltway]

Like I said, "Congestion is not a static entity, we need to look at the 24/7/365 performance of the highway."  Same thing with respect to "bottlenecks".  The 24/7/365 performance of the highway is significantly improved as a result.  I have regularly benefitted from the 4th laning and the extended HOT lanes.

Even if the average 24/7/365 performance of I-95 has improved in terms of greater capacity, I argue that from a safety perspective, I-95 has not improved. The merging and weaving at Woodbridge(especially) and Garrisonville, 24/7/365 is on average more dangerous and accident-prone(even during off-peak hours)than the previous merging and weaving ever was at Newington and Dumfries.

Do you have some data to back up those broad sweeping assertions?  You know, accident data is tabulated on highways and it can be analyzed and reported on.

I don't so I apologize for sounding more factual than I intended to be. My final point is that from a safety perspective looking at the I-95 widening project, it would appear that ending the southbound fourth lane right in the middle of where US-1 and VA-123 also drop off heavy traffic, would result in more of a risk of accidents than having it end at the previously less hectic Newington interchange(I don't even think the Fairfax County Parkway was complete yet at the time either). IMO the wiser decision would have been to have the fourth lane end one exit further south at the Prince William Parkway, where far more southbound I-95 traffic gets off. If you have any specific data that either contradicts or supports my earlier statements I'd be very interested in seeing it.

You made the assertions, your job is to support them with data, that is how this works in online group discussions.

A major problem as stated in the project planning documents for the 4th Lane Widening Project, was that the lane drop at Springfield caused operational problems during heavy traffic periods upstream onto I-395 and I-495.  The completion of the Springfield Interchange Improvement Project's general purpose roadways in 2007, added to the problem of having the 4th lane drop so close to the Springfield Interchange.  Extending the 4th lanes 5 miles further to the south was a major improvement addressing this.

A substantial amount of southbound traffic exits at Woodbridge and at the US-1 interchange before Woodbridge.  I am ok with having the lane end where it does until funding will be found to extend the widening further south.

[Jmiles32]

I'll throw out another, yet very different example in Virginia: The Elizabeth River Crossings Project in Hampton Roads

The ERC project was a controversial deal that the state made with a private partner to build a new two-lane tunnel adjacent to the existing Midtown tunnel, maintain and make safety improvements on the existing Midtown and Downtown tunnels, and extend VA-164 to I-264 in exchange for the rights to toll both tunnels.  However, due to high toll costs that have been financially hurting the many commuters that use the tunnels frequently, Virginia has not only paid ERC partners to lower the tolls, but they've also even started a toll relief program meant to ease the burden of Elizabeth River Tunnels' tolls on Norfolk and Portsmouth's most financially impacted.

[Hurricane Rex]

A failed project that would've made this list is the CRC project. I-5 south would've dropped from 4 lanes to 3 lanes right before AADT traffic levels increase by 15000. It drops to two lanes 3 miles later. Looks like it would've created a new one while removing one.

[Beltway]

I'll throw out another, yet very different example in Virginia: The Elizabeth River Crossings Project in Hampton Roads
The ERC project was a controversial deal that the state made with a private partner to build a new two-lane tunnel adjacent to the existing Midtown tunnel, maintain and make safety improvements on the existing Midtown and Downtown tunnels, and extend VA-164 to I-264 in exchange for the rights to toll both tunnels.  However, due to high toll costs that have been financially hurting the many commuters that use the tunnels frequently, Virginia has not only paid ERC partners to lower the tolls, but they've also even started a toll relief program meant to ease the burden of Elizabeth River Tunnels' tolls on Norfolk and Portsmouth's most financially impacted.

Public-private partnerships (P3) can involve a mix of private funding and public funding, in whatever ratio is negotiated.  Toll roads whether P3 or conventional, can involve a mix of toll revenue bonds and taxpayer funding, in whatever ratio is negotiated.   Public subsidies of tolls sometimes are implemented.

Technically using P3 in the ERC Project was a masterful way of getting a massive and very expensive ($1.4 billion in construction) and very important project funded and built on time and on budget.

That said people in the region were accustomed to having the two tunnels toll-free since 1987, and for some people it was a bitter pill to swallow to have tolls reinstituted, even though the project probably would not have been built otherwise.

That said after this experience with this project, I don't think the public consensus in the area will allow retolling of the Hampton Roads crossings, even though it will be nearly impossible to expand the crossings otherwise, something that is very needed.

[michravera]

The toll lanes on SB I-680 between Dublin and Fremont/San Jose were and are intended to relieve peak-commute traffic between those areas, but instead have precipitated their own congestion "effect" near their southern end, as a large portion of the traffic attempts to cross all 3 free lanes over a very short (about 1 mile) stretch of 680 in order to access the CA 262 connector to I-880; the toll lanes should have been terminated a mile or two before their present end to allow a more smooth merge and transition across the lanes.

Same goes for the HOV lanes on I-880 south of Montague. The end at roughly the centerline of US-101. Nevermind the ugly cloverleaves.

[froggie]

Congestion is not a static entity, we need to look at the 24/7/365 performance of the highway.  These capacity increases extended to where I-95 volumes are lower, and there are clear benefits to both projects over the whole timespans.  The claim that these projects were intended "to fix a bottleneck" is not really true, they were to provide additional capacity and general traffic relief, and also additional traffic options in the case of the HOT lanes.  The 2-mile extension of the reversible roadway provided a second connection to the general purpose roadway, and provided the benefit of bypassing the VA-610 Garrisonville interchange.

I understand your point about increasing capacity and yes in that regard, I am extremely thankful for both projects. However in terms of the OP, both projects sought to address a lack of capacity on I-95 in which as a result of accomplishing that, created new bottleneck problems considerably worse than what existed before.

Based on my usages, I just don't agree with the last statement.  Like I said, "Congestion is not a static entity, we need to look at the 24/7/365 performance of the highway."  Same thing with respect to "bottlenecks".  The 24/7/365 performance of the highway is significantly improved as a result.  I have regularly benefitted from the 4th laning and the extended HOT lanes.

My own experience with southbound at Woodbridge is closer to what Jmiles is asserting than what you are saying.  Admittedly I don't have "the data" to back this up (but I'd like to see your data), but what I've seen is a Woodbridge bottleneck that is both longer duration and more severe than the Newington bottleneck was.

[Beltway]

Based on my usages, I just don't agree with the last statement.  Like I said, "Congestion is not a static entity, we need to look at the 24/7/365 performance of the highway."  Same thing with respect to "bottlenecks".  The 24/7/365 performance of the highway is significantly improved as a result.  I have regularly benefitted from the 4th laning and the extended HOT lanes.

My own experience with southbound at Woodbridge is closer to what Jmiles is asserting than what you are saying.  Admittedly I don't have "the data" to back this up (but I'd like to see your data), but what I've seen is a Woodbridge bottleneck that is both longer duration and more severe than the Newington bottleneck was.

Again, the one making the assertion needs to provide the data, not vice versa.  The problem with a Newington bottleneck was how often it could reach back onto I-395 and I-495 and VA-644.

[Super Mateo]

This is exactly what happened at the intersection of US 45/LaGrange Road and Interstate 80.  Originally a cloverleaf, the intersection was inexplicably reconstructed into a parclo A4.  My guess would be that the change was to remove weaving on LaGrange, especially for traffic turning left onto 191st Street, a half mile south of there.  Making it a parclo A4 took care of the weaving, but created other problems:
-A high crash rate on the westbound off ramp, including at the light at US 45.
-No alleviation from dealing with two separate ramps of merging traffic on I-80.
-Two extra stoplights on US 45.
-Drivers not realizing the right through lane on southbound US 45 becomes Exit Only.

Parclo A4 interchanges are a bad idea in general.  The freeway gets two merges and possible backups on it from the off ramp.  The arterial gets two extra lights that don't need to be there.  A SPUI would have been much better.  US 45 would only have one light and the sharp curve on the ramp would not exist.

[Brandon]

This is exactly what happened at the intersection of US 45/LaGrange Road and Interstate 80.  Originally a cloverleaf, the intersection was inexplicably reconstructed into a parclo A4.  My guess would be that the change was to remove weaving on LaGrange, especially for traffic turning left onto 191st Street, a half mile south of there.  Making it a parclo A4 took care of the weaving, but created other problems:
-A high crash rate on the westbound off ramp, including at the light at US 45.
-No alleviation from dealing with two separate ramps of merging traffic on I-80.
-Two extra stoplights on US 45.
-Drivers not realizing the right through lane on southbound US 45 becomes Exit Only.

Parclo A4 interchanges are a bad idea in general.  The freeway gets two merges and possible backups on it from the off ramp.  The arterial gets two extra lights that don't need to be there.  A SPUI would have been much better.  US 45 would only have one light and the sharp curve on the ramp would not exist.

Yeah, that's a bad one, and par for the course regarding IDOT.

Then there's the addition of the third lane on I-80 from 96th Avenue (just cannot bring myself to call it LaGrange Road) to just east of Maple (US-30).  While it made it easier to get to I-355 and made traffic flow better, it (in typical IDOT fashion - see below) causes a major backup just before US-30 as the lane ends less than a mile east of the interchange.

Historic IDOT issue: Prior to widening I-55 to six lanes about 2002 or so, I-55 had this exact same issue.  The third lane would end one mile north/east of Weber Road.  IDOT, in their infinite wisdom, added a third lane on I-55 in the 1990s from IL-53 to one mile short of Weber Road.  While the third lane was nice by the weigh stations and helped flow there, during rush hour, traffic would back up from this lane drop to the Dan Ryan Expressway!  Yes, folks, that's a 30 mile traffic jam due to one lane drop, one mile prior to an exit a lot of commuters use.

[Scott5114]

In OKC, they moved I-40 south to avoid the old "Crosstown Viaduct", which was congested and falling apart, but until the OKC Boulevard is done, I-40 travelers have no convenient way to downtown. Way to go, ODOT.

Robinson/Shields and Sheridan aren't that far out of the way.

[ET21]

This is exactly what happened at the intersection of US 45/LaGrange Road and Interstate 80.  Originally a cloverleaf, the intersection was inexplicably reconstructed into a parclo A4.  My guess would be that the change was to remove weaving on LaGrange, especially for traffic turning left onto 191st Street, a half mile south of there.  Making it a parclo A4 took care of the weaving, but created other problems:
-A high crash rate on the westbound off ramp, including at the light at US 45.
-No alleviation from dealing with two separate ramps of merging traffic on I-80.
-Two extra stoplights on US 45.
-Drivers not realizing the right through lane on southbound US 45 becomes Exit Only.

Parclo A4 interchanges are a bad idea in general.  The freeway gets two merges and possible backups on it from the off ramp.  The arterial gets two extra lights that don't need to be there.  A SPUI would have been much better.  US 45 would only have one light and the sharp curve on the ramp would not exist.

Yeah, that's a bad one, and par for the course regarding IDOT.

Then there's the addition of the third lane on I-80 from 96th Avenue (just cannot bring myself to call it LaGrange Road) to just east of Maple (US-30).  While it made it easier to get to I-355 and made traffic flow better, it (in typical IDOT fashion - see below) causes a major backup just before US-30 as the lane ends less than a mile east of the interchange.

Historic IDOT issue: Prior to widening I-55 to six lanes about 2002 or so, I-55 had this exact same issue.  The third lane would end one mile north/east of Weber Road.  IDOT, in their infinite wisdom, added a third lane on I-55 in the 1990s from IL-53 to one mile short of Weber Road.  While the third lane was nice by the weigh stations and helped flow there, during rush hour, traffic would back up from this lane drop to the Dan Ryan Expressway!  Yes, folks, that's a 30 mile traffic jam due to one lane drop, one mile prior to an exit a lot of commuters use.

And that issue still haunts us to this day. Some days you can get away, but there are some days where it still backs up from there to the Dan Ryan, and you hear the dreaded 1 hour and 45 min time from LSD to 355

[1995hoo]

....

A major problem as stated in the project planning documents for the 4th Lane Widening Project, was that the lane drop at Springfield caused operational problems during heavy traffic periods upstream onto I-395 and I-495.  The completion of the Springfield Interchange Improvement Project's general purpose roadways in 2007, added to the problem of having the 4th lane drop so close to the Springfield Interchange.  Extending the 4th lanes 5 miles further to the south was a major improvement addressing this.

....

Back when the Springfield Interchange was completed (not counting the deferred Phase VIII HOV ramps), there were a fair number of complaints from people in my area of Fairfax County that the reconstruction had accomplished precisely the sort of thing the OP is seeking: They complained about the backups at Newington due to the lane drop there and railed against the Springfield Interchange project because it "didn't solve" that problem. Well, duh, it wasn't intended to do anything about Newington, it was intended to resolve the problems in Springfield. It did (and does) an outstanding job of resolving what it was intended to do, but it was a classic example of unintended consequences because it did indeed exacerbate a bad situation in Newington by causing people to reach that spot more quickly than they did before. (In other words, the congestion in Springfield may have acted as sort of a filter or a meter, for lack of a better term, and when it was removed it caused too many people to arrive at the lane drop too quickly.)