What are some projects that were done to solve a problem, actually solves it, but inadvertently causes a new one in the area?
one that comes to mind near me is the US 31 project, it fixed the congestion problems on US 31, but ended up causing a new problem for 465. Traffic now backs up daily there, due to the need for more lanes on 465. This was a problem before, but it's much worse now after this project. What are your guys' examples?
Phase I of Prospect Mountain (Kamikaze Curve) on NY 17 left it in a less safe condition than it was in prior to construction. Situation lasted longer than expected due to funding issues and fitting Phase II into NYSDOT's capital program, which was always expected to correct the safety issues created by Phase I.
(personal opinion emphasized)
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.
Quote from: Brandon on December 04, 2017, 10:44:17 AM
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?
Are we talking about projects that were perceived to solve a problem or one that actually solved it? If it's the former then pretty much any complex roundabout built over the past decade has been perceived to solve a deadly crash problem. The propaganda that all roundabouts are safe is strong and most people believe it without question.
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.
For those not familiar with the project, when all 3 phases are done, it will be a 11 mile, 4 lane expressway or freeway bypassing the 2 cities and surrounding areas. Phase 1 is a 4 mile, 2 lane expressway that bypasses half of Newberg and most of Dundee.
Location: extension of OR 18
The decision to bypass Rays and Sideling Hill Tunnels may have been more cost-effective than twinning those two, but it also resulted in a much higher-elevation road than the bypassed section. This leads to some of the worst winter road conditions on the east-west Turnpike outside of the Allegheny Mountain approaches. Additionally, the grades on each side of the bypass are challenging for trucks, although at least a third truck climbing lane is provided on the ascending side.
If you look at some of the contemporary news coverage of the Turnpike's planning and construction from around 1938-1940, it's interesting to note that much of the early emphasis was on the Turnpike being a low-elevation and "all weather" highway–more so than on it being a high-speed road. In that light, the relatively high-elevation bypass would seem to be somewhat contrary to the original intent.
Quote from: tradephoric on December 04, 2017, 12:26:59 PM
Are we talking about projects that were perceived to solve a problem or one that actually solved it? If it's the former then pretty much any complex roundabout built over the past decade has been perceived to solve a deadly crash problem. The propaganda that all roundabouts are safe is strong and most people believe it without question.
I'll fix what you said.
An intersection (be specific) had a congestion problem. A roundabout was installed to relieve congestion. That resolved the congestion problem. However, a new problem is that the intersection now has more accidents than before.
That's what the OP wanted to hear. Not your opinion about propaganda, because we could open a whole can of worms in regards to what NIMBYs say may or will happen when any road project is completed.
The recent conversion of two tight cloverleaf MA 128 interchanges (MA 35 & 62) in Danvers into diamond interchanges. While such eliminated the weaving between the ramps along 128; the change triggered a sizable uptick in left-turn-related accidents on 35 & 62 (for the ramps leading to 128).
See this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17981.0) from last year for more details.
New Route 24, Bel Air-Abingdon-Edgewood, Maryland, has gotten just as congested in 30 years as old Route 24, now Route 924, was when new 24 opened around this time in 1987.
Quote from: epzik8 on December 04, 2017, 03:31:05 PM
New Route 24, Bel Air-Abingdon-Edgewood, Maryland, has gotten just as congested in 30 years as old Route 24, now Route 924, was when new 24 opened around this time in 1987.
That is caused by traffic increasing over time, not by the act of fixing one thing causing another to break/fail.
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 04, 2017, 01:04:54 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on December 04, 2017, 12:26:59 PM
Are we talking about projects that were perceived to solve a problem or one that actually solved it? If it's the former then pretty much any complex roundabout built over the past decade has been perceived to solve a deadly crash problem. The propaganda that all roundabouts are safe is strong and most people believe it without question.
I'll fix what you said.
An intersection (be specific) had a congestion problem. A roundabout was installed to relieve congestion. That resolved the congestion problem. However, a new problem is that the intersection now has more accidents than before.
That's what the OP wanted to hear. Not your opinion about propaganda, because we could open a whole can of worms in regards to what NIMBYs say may or will happen when any road project is completed.
please ignore his comments, I don't want this thread to turn into "crash prone modern roundabouts" which is a 20+page long bitchfest on how much he hates roundabouts.
465 was widened to 8 lanes with 2 aux lanes on either side of i-69, INDOT in their infinite wisdom, intentionally removed the 69 interchange because it was deemed "too regional" of an improvement, the result is the "daily 465 backup" that occurs on EB 465 from 4-7pm every weekday, it can back up as far as US 31. In English "too regional" means "we didn't have the money"
thankfully this will be fixed in 2020
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.
The HOV lane on I-15 in Salt Lake City might qualify. It does a decent job when traffic is flowing, but there are people who weave in and out of it across the double white line, and that often causes accidents which make the daily congestion worse.
Also, anytime a road is widened in two parts but a part between them is left unwidened (local examples are I-15 in Lehi and between Ogden and Layton) it will indeed make traffic better where the widening occurred, but it creates bottlenecks where the road narrows.
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 04, 2017, 04:23:49 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 04, 2017, 01:04:54 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on December 04, 2017, 12:26:59 PM
Are we talking about projects that were perceived to solve a problem or one that actually solved it? If it's the former then pretty much any complex roundabout built over the past decade has been perceived to solve a deadly crash problem. The propaganda that all roundabouts are safe is strong and most people believe it without question.
I'll fix what you said.
An intersection (be specific) had a congestion problem. A roundabout was installed to relieve congestion. That resolved the congestion problem. However, a new problem is that the intersection now has more accidents than before.
That's what the OP wanted to hear. Not your opinion about propaganda, because we could open a whole can of worms in regards to what NIMBYs say may or will happen when any road project is completed.
please ignore his comments, I don't want this thread to turn into "crash prone modern roundabouts" which is a 20+page long bitchfest on how much he hates roundabouts.
It's now 59 pages. And I made the mistake of posting in it, so I now see in "new replies to your posts" every time someone posts in it.
Quote from: roadguy2 on December 04, 2017, 05:46:36 PM
The HOV lane on I-15 in Salt Lake City might qualify. It does a decent job when traffic is flowing, but there are people who weave in and out of it across the double white line, and that often causes accidents which make the daily congestion worse.
Also, anytime a road is widened in two parts but a part between them is left unwidened (local examples are I-15 in Lehi and between Ogden and Layton) it will indeed make traffic better where the widening occurred, but it creates bottlenecks where the road narrows.
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 04, 2017, 04:23:49 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 04, 2017, 01:04:54 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on December 04, 2017, 12:26:59 PM
Are we talking about projects that were perceived to solve a problem or one that actually solved it? If it's the former then pretty much any complex roundabout built over the past decade has been perceived to solve a deadly crash problem. The propaganda that all roundabouts are safe is strong and most people believe it without question.
I'll fix what you said.
An intersection (be specific) had a congestion problem. A roundabout was installed to relieve congestion. That resolved the congestion problem. However, a new problem is that the intersection now has more accidents than before.
That's what the OP wanted to hear. Not your opinion about propaganda, because we could open a whole can of worms in regards to what NIMBYs say may or will happen when any road project is completed.
please ignore his comments, I don't want this thread to turn into "crash prone modern roundabouts" which is a 20+page long bitchfest on how much he hates roundabouts.
It's now 59 pages. And I made the mistake of posting in it, so I now see in "new replies to your posts" every time someone posts in it.
I know i made the same mistake, now every day that damn thread is in my list of threads I replied to. [emoji17]
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 04, 2017, 05:49:34 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on December 04, 2017, 05:46:36 PM
The HOV lane on I-15 in Salt Lake City might qualify. It does a decent job when traffic is flowing, but there are people who weave in and out of it across the double white line, and that often causes accidents which make the daily congestion worse.
Also, anytime a road is widened in two parts but a part between them is left unwidened (local examples are I-15 in Lehi and between Ogden and Layton) it will indeed make traffic better where the widening occurred, but it creates bottlenecks where the road narrows.
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 04, 2017, 04:23:49 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 04, 2017, 01:04:54 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on December 04, 2017, 12:26:59 PM
Are we talking about projects that were perceived to solve a problem or one that actually solved it? If it's the former then pretty much any complex roundabout built over the past decade has been perceived to solve a deadly crash problem. The propaganda that all roundabouts are safe is strong and most people believe it without question.
I'll fix what you said.
An intersection (be specific) had a congestion problem. A roundabout was installed to relieve congestion. That resolved the congestion problem. However, a new problem is that the intersection now has more accidents than before.
That's what the OP wanted to hear. Not your opinion about propaganda, because we could open a whole can of worms in regards to what NIMBYs say may or will happen when any road project is completed.
please ignore his comments, I don't want this thread to turn into "crash prone modern roundabouts" which is a 20+page long bitchfest on how much he hates roundabouts.
It's now 59 pages. And I made the mistake of posting in it, so I now see in "new replies to your posts" every time someone posts in it.
I know i made the same mistake, now every day that damn thread is in my list of threads I replied to. [emoji17]
Silverback1065 has sabotaged their own thread.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 04, 2017, 05:41:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2017, 12:20:04 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 04, 2017, 05:41:11 PM
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.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 04, 2017, 12:05:43 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 04, 2017, 10:44:17 AM
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.
In the case of the Crosstown, what really changed is that the large movement from EB 62 to NB 35W was removed from the EB 62 through traffic equation. That's a large movement, so the resulting single lane bottleneck at Portland is much smaller than the old single lane bottleneck at Lyndale was.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 05, 2017, 06:41:43 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2017, 12:20:04 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 04, 2017, 05:41:11 PM
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.
There's 2 factors here:
1) The wider road. While congestion will still form, the congested period of time will be less. This is something often overlooked (or ignored) by people not wanting roads widened. They feel that unless congestion is eliminated completely and forever, the project failed. They'll rather see a 15 mile backup for 5 hours, then a 3 mile backup for 2 hours. Transportation departments aren't very good at noting that though. They tend to talk in average times, rather than saying "Hey, look, this isn't going to completely eliminate congestion, but someone on the road will see much less congestion, especially during rush hour and before and after rush hour".
2) The HOT lane terminus is exactly the problem the OP is looking at. The congested point simply moved downstream. If you enter or exit 95 north of that point, this doesn't affect you. But if you're going to this point and south, then it's a problem.
Based on what I saw yesterday all over Facebook, I'm going to guess that the new I-66 tolling inside the beltway is going to be a candidate for this thread.
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole1) The wider road. While congestion will still form, the congested period of time will be less. This is something often overlooked (or ignored) by people not wanting roads widened. They feel that unless congestion is eliminated completely and forever, the project failed. They'll rather see a 15 mile backup for 5 hours, then a 3 mile backup for 2 hours. Transportation departments aren't very good at noting that though. They tend to talk in average times, rather than saying "Hey, look, this isn't going to completely eliminate congestion, but someone on the road will see much less congestion, especially during rush hour and before and after rush hour".
The reality with the Woodbridge situation does not match what you say here, however. The duration and intensity of the Woodbridge bottleneck is noticeably worse than when the bottleneck was in Newington. And this is DESPITE the reversible lanes being widened to 3 lanes (from the previous 2) and allowing toll-paying solo- and two-passenger vehicles since the general lanes were added between Newington and Woodbridge.
Quote from: froggie on December 05, 2017, 07:18:22 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 04, 2017, 12:05:43 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 04, 2017, 10:44:17 AM
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".
Quote from: Brandon on December 04, 2017, 10:44:17 AM
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.
Quote from: Brandon on December 05, 2017, 12:09:30 PM
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.
Quote from: froggie on December 05, 2017, 01:10:49 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 04, 2017, 10:44:17 AM
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.
Quote from: Brandon on December 05, 2017, 12:09:30 PM
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.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 04, 2017, 12:42:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 05, 2017, 06:41:43 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2017, 12:20:04 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 04, 2017, 05:41:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2017, 04:18:03 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 05, 2017, 06:41:43 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2017, 12:20:04 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 04, 2017, 05:41:11 PM
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.
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
The infamous kneejerk downgrade of NY-198 comes to mind.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 05, 2017, 05:24:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2017, 04:18:03 PM
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.
Quote from: 1 on December 05, 2017, 01:12:05 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 05, 2017, 01:10:49 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 04, 2017, 10:44:17 AM
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.
Quote from: Brandon on December 05, 2017, 12:09:30 PM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2017, 07:31:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 06, 2017, 06:12:48 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2017, 07:31:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on December 06, 2017, 07:12:03 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 06, 2017, 06:12:48 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2017, 07:31:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 06, 2017, 07:39:09 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 06, 2017, 07:12:03 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 06, 2017, 06:12:48 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2017, 07:31:23 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 06, 2017, 10:02:44 PM
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.
Quote from: sparker on December 04, 2017, 04:05:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2017, 07:31:23 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 05, 2017, 05:24:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2017, 04:18:03 PM
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.
Quote from: froggie on December 07, 2017, 08:55:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2017, 07:31:23 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Super Mateo on December 07, 2017, 01:05:27 PM
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.
Quote from: MCRoads on December 05, 2017, 09:49:20 AM
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.
Quote from: Brandon on December 07, 2017, 01:26:48 PM
Quote from: Super Mateo on December 07, 2017, 01:05:27 PM
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
Quote from: Beltway on December 06, 2017, 09:25:11 PM
....
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.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 09, 2017, 11:18:17 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 06, 2017, 09:25:11 PM
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.)
I see the 4th Lane Widening Project as part of an associated group of major I-95 projects at the time that were developed to improve regional traffic conditions.
1) Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project, 2000-2013
2) Springfield Interchange Improvement Project's general purpose roadways, 1999-2007
3) I-95 4th Lane Widening Project, 2008-2011
Collectively they provided a massive improvement, IMHO.
Followed by further major improvements --
4) Springfield Interchange Phase 8 connecting Capital Beltway to I-95/I-395 reversible roadway, 2012
5) I-95 HOT Lanes Project, third lane added to reversible roadway down to Dale City, reversible roadway extended to just north of Garrisonville, tolled access provided for SOV and HOV-2, 2014
6) I-95 reversible roadway extended to south of Garrisonville, 2017
The I-95 C-D roadways project at Fredericksburg is not directly connected to the above projects, but it will begin in 2018 and provide major improvements there.
Quote from: Beltway on December 09, 2017, 12:51:53 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 09, 2017, 11:18:17 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 06, 2017, 09:25:11 PM
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.)
I see the 4th Lane Widening Project as part of an associated group of major I-95 projects at the time that were developed to improve regional traffic conditions.
1) Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project, 2000-2013
2) Springfield Interchange Improvement Project's general purpose roadways, 1999-2007
3) I-95 4th Lane Widening Project, 2008-2011
Collectively they provided a massive improvement, IMHO.
Followed by further major improvements --
4) Springfield Interchange Phase 8 connecting Capital Beltway to I-95/I-395 reversible roadway, 2012
5) I-95 HOT Lanes Project, third lane added to reversible roadway down to Dale City, reversible roadway extended to just north of Garrisonville, tolled access provided for SOV and HOV-2, 2014
6) I-95 reversible roadway extended to south of Garrisonville, 2017
The I-95 C-D roadways project at Fredericksburg is not directly connected to the above projects, but it will begin in 2018 and provide major improvements there.
Agreed and by no means is anyone here arguing against what you're saying. What I am arguing is that while although all of the above projects have been extremely helpful and have successfully done what they were designed to do, add more capacity to I-95, there are a few unintended consequences that resulted from upon their completion, in which IMHO are perfect examples of what is described in the OP.
As 1995hoo mentions, fixing the Springfield interchange moved a southbound bottleneck down to Newington. I'm guessing at the time that had not been foreseen. Fixing the Newington bottleneck by adding more capacity to Woodbridge accomplished adding more capacity, but created a new bottleneck down in Woodbridge. While that should have have been foreseen due to obvious reasons, it was not, or perhaps there wasn't enough funding to extend the fourth lane any further south.
Extending the HOV lanes to Garrisonville and turning them HOT was meant to get more use out of the existing lanes and add more capacity to I-95 by widening them north of Dale City and extending them south of Dumfries. This seems to have been accomplished as VDOT had planned. However I am certain both VDOT and Transburban did not expect the new problem created, the express lanes regularly backing up at their new southern terminus to be as bad as it was because of how almost immediately they were pressured to extend the lanes past exit 143 and now eventually all the way to Fredricksburg. I will also predict that in 2022 when both the FredEX extension and the I-95 C-D roadways project are complete, some sort of unforeseen new problem will emerge south of the VA-3 interchange.
Missouri's supplemental (state secondary) route system was designed to bring people closer to state-maintained highways, but in turn just opened up a whole new can of worms involving funding issues.
This is MoDOT's state highway map:
(https://image.prntscr.com/image/dGSW4wGBQImSUtbpnGrslQ.png)
Now please note, Missouri's rural population makes up a metric fuckton of the state's total population, and the entire point of this project was to bring rural farmers, citizens, and industrial outlets closer to state roads. But alas, due to the high amount of roads, it plunged MoDOT into even deeper funding issues, and combine that with a gas tax that won't increase anytime soon, you have a recipe for financial turmoil.
Hell, even a few years ago, MoDOT considered to stop maintaining minor routes due to severe funding issues. And there have been a few senate bills that'd authorize MoDOT to hand off minor routes to their respective county, but those never came to pass.
All in all, MoDOT had good intentions, but what they did was plunge themselves into financial issues. Basically MoDOT is it's own worst enemy.
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on December 09, 2017, 02:09:08 PM
Missouri's supplemental (state secondary) route system was designed to bring people closer to state-maintained highways, but in turn just opened up a whole new can of worms involving funding issues.
They are also the worst-maintained roads I have ever seen... the counties could probably do a better job than MODOT is!
Quote from: 1995hoo(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.)
Exactly what's happening now at Woodbridge.
Quote from: SD Mapman on December 09, 2017, 02:24:56 PM
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on December 09, 2017, 02:09:08 PM
Missouri's supplemental (state secondary) route system was designed to bring people closer to state-maintained highways, but in turn just opened up a whole new can of worms involving funding issues.
They are also the worst-maintained roads I have ever seen... the counties could probably do a better job than MODOT is!
It really depends on what part of the state you're in though. The supplemental routes in the St Louis district are in great condition.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 09, 2017, 01:59:47 PM
Agreed and by no means is anyone here arguing against what you're saying. What I am arguing is that while although all of the above projects have been extremely helpful and have successfully done what they were designed to do, add more capacity to I-95, there are a few unintended consequences that resulted from upon their completion, in which IMHO are perfect examples of what is described in the OP.
As 1995hoo mentions, fixing the Springfield interchange moved a southbound bottleneck down to Newington. I'm guessing at the time that had not been foreseen. Fixing the Newington bottleneck by adding more capacity to Woodbridge accomplished adding more capacity, but created a new bottleneck down in Woodbridge. While that should have have been foreseen due to obvious reasons, it was not, or perhaps there wasn't enough funding to extend the fourth lane any further south.
Extending the HOV lanes to Garrisonville and turning them HOT was meant to get more use out of the existing lanes and add more capacity to I-95 by widening them north of Dale City and extending them south of Dumfries. This seems to have been accomplished as VDOT had planned. However I am certain both VDOT and Transburban did not expect the new problem created, the express lanes regularly backing up at their new southern terminus to be as bad as it was because of how almost immediately they were pressured to extend the lanes past exit 143 and now eventually all the way to Fredricksburg. I will also predict that in 2022 when both the FredEX extension and the I-95 C-D roadways project are complete, some sort of unforeseen new problem will emerge south of the VA-3 interchange.
I see 5 different ways that you referred to "unforeseen". I would disagree that it would not be known that having a lane drop on a highway where the volume doesn't drop by 33% or 40% would not result in congestion at that point at certain times when traffic load is at capacity. Unless they are going to extend the 4th lanes at least to Massaponax, that will be a result of building segments as funding becomes available. Same with extending the reversible roadway. Nothing unforeseen about it.
Quote from: SD Mapman on December 09, 2017, 02:24:56 PM
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on December 09, 2017, 02:09:08 PM
Missouri's supplemental (state secondary) route system was designed to bring people closer to state-maintained highways, but in turn just opened up a whole new can of worms involving funding issues.
They are also the worst-maintained roads I have ever seen... the counties could probably do a better job than MODOT is!
Try driving some of West Virginia's "county" routes. I was on some pretty bad ones last weekend -- including one that's shown on the map, but is b basically an unmaintained dirt road. I didn't stay on it long, though.
Quote from: Beltway on December 09, 2017, 09:07:18 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 09, 2017, 01:59:47 PM
Agreed and by no means is anyone here arguing against what you're saying. What I am arguing is that while although all of the above projects have been extremely helpful and have successfully done what they were designed to do, add more capacity to I-95, there are a few unintended consequences that resulted from upon their completion, in which IMHO are perfect examples of what is described in the OP.
As 1995hoo mentions, fixing the Springfield interchange moved a southbound bottleneck down to Newington. I'm guessing at the time that had not been foreseen. Fixing the Newington bottleneck by adding more capacity to Woodbridge accomplished adding more capacity, but created a new bottleneck down in Woodbridge. While that should have have been foreseen due to obvious reasons, it was not, or perhaps there wasn't enough funding to extend the fourth lane any further south.
Extending the HOV lanes to Garrisonville and turning them HOT was meant to get more use out of the existing lanes and add more capacity to I-95 by widening them north of Dale City and extending them south of Dumfries. This seems to have been accomplished as VDOT had planned. However I am certain both VDOT and Transburban did not expect the new problem created, the express lanes regularly backing up at their new southern terminus to be as bad as it was because of how almost immediately they were pressured to extend the lanes past exit 143 and now eventually all the way to Fredricksburg. I will also predict that in 2022 when both the FredEX extension and the I-95 C-D roadways project are complete, some sort of unforeseen new problem will emerge south of the VA-3 interchange.
I see 5 different ways that you referred to "unforeseen". I would disagree that it would not be known that having a lane drop on a highway where the volume doesn't drop by 33% or 40% would not result in congestion at that point at certain times when traffic load is at capacity. Unless they are going to extend the 4th lanes at least to Massaponax, that will be a result of building segments as funding becomes available. Same with extending the reversible roadway. Nothing unforeseen about it.
The Garrisonville HOT lane extension was a key problem of design. Certainly it reduced the problems that existed in Dumfries, due to the fact that it moved the problem further down the line. But it exacerbated the merging problem - the new merge at Garrisonville is a lot worse than the old merge at Dumfries. The real problem is that you have 3 southbound general lanes merging with 2 southbound (part time) HOT lanes to form 3 southbound lanes. A "fair" merge would have the 3 general lanes merging into 2 and the 2 HOT lanes merging into 1 adn then the 2 generals and the 1 HOt seemlesslly merging into 3 generals. But neither design is like that. The HOT lanes do not get lanes of their own and both are forced to merge in at the same time. (There is a similar problem at the north end of the 495 HOT lanes near the American Legion Bridge.
What they have recently done has helped tremendously. Having the right HOT lane merge into the right side of the general lanes before the Garrisonville exit and the left HOT lane merge into the left side of I-95 has separated the merging and made it more manageable.
Quote from: Beltway on December 09, 2017, 09:07:18 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 09, 2017, 01:59:47 PM
Agreed and by no means is anyone here arguing against what you're saying. What I am arguing is that while although all of the above projects have been extremely helpful and have successfully done what they were designed to do, add more capacity to I-95, there are a few unintended consequences that resulted from upon their completion, in which IMHO are perfect examples of what is described in the OP.
As 1995hoo mentions, fixing the Springfield interchange moved a southbound bottleneck down to Newington. I'm guessing at the time that had not been foreseen. Fixing the Newington bottleneck by adding more capacity to Woodbridge accomplished adding more capacity, but created a new bottleneck down in Woodbridge. While that should have have been foreseen due to obvious reasons, it was not, or perhaps there wasn't enough funding to extend the fourth lane any further south.
Extending the HOV lanes to Garrisonville and turning them HOT was meant to get more use out of the existing lanes and add more capacity to I-95 by widening them north of Dale City and extending them south of Dumfries. This seems to have been accomplished as VDOT had planned. However I am certain both VDOT and Transburban did not expect the new problem created, the express lanes regularly backing up at their new southern terminus to be as bad as it was because of how almost immediately they were pressured to extend the lanes past exit 143 and now eventually all the way to Fredricksburg. I will also predict that in 2022 when both the FredEX extension and the I-95 C-D roadways project are complete, some sort of unforeseen new problem will emerge south of the VA-3 interchange.
I see 5 different ways that you referred to "unforeseen". I would disagree that it would not be known that having a lane drop on a highway where the volume doesn't drop by 33% or 40% would not result in congestion at that point at certain times when traffic load is at capacity. Unless they are going to extend the 4th lanes at least to Massaponax, that will be a result of building segments as funding becomes available. Same with extending the reversible roadway. Nothing unforeseen about it.
Seems like it was unforeseen. Why build an expensive overpass when a simple merge would do?
Quote from: mrsman on January 06, 2018, 09:24:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 09, 2017, 09:07:18 PM
I would disagree that it would not be known that having a lane drop on a highway where the volume doesn't drop by 33% or 40% would not result in congestion at that point at certain times when traffic load is at capacity. Unless they are going to extend the 4th lanes at least to Massaponax, that will be a result of building segments as funding becomes available. Same with extending the reversible roadway. Nothing unforeseen about it.
The Garrisonville HOT lane extension was a key problem of design. Certainly it reduced the problems that existed in Dumfries, due to the fact that it moved the problem further down the line. But it exacerbated the merging problem - the new merge at Garrisonville is a lot worse than the old merge at Dumfries. The real problem is that you have 3 southbound general lanes merging with 2 southbound (part time) HOT lanes to form 3 southbound lanes. A "fair" merge would have the 3 general lanes merging into 2 and the 2 HOT lanes merging into 1 adn then the 2 generals and the 1 HOt seemlesslly merging into 3 generals. But neither design is like that. The HOT lanes do not get lanes of their own and both are forced to merge in at the same time. (There is a similar problem at the north end of the 495 HOT lanes near the American Legion Bridge.
What they have recently done has helped tremendously. Having the right HOT lane merge into the right side of the general lanes before the Garrisonville exit and the left HOT lane merge into the left side of I-95 has separated the merging and made it more manageable.
The basic issue for all of the termini of the reversible roadway (the current, the previous at Dumfries, the original at Springfield), for southbound traffic is 5 lanes reducing to 3 lanes. In none did they drop a lane on the general purpose roadway; and if they did, that would be controlled by overhead lane control signals as all 3 general purpose lanes are needed when the reversible roadway is not open southbound.
The current terminus on the left is probably temporary and will not be needed when the reversible roadway is extended to Fredericksburg. When it ultimately gets to Massaponax the reversible roadway traffic should be light enough to be equivalent to one lane or less.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 06, 2018, 09:34:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 09, 2017, 09:07:18 PM
I see 5 different ways that you referred to "unforeseen". I would disagree that it would not be known that having a lane drop on a highway where the volume doesn't drop by 33% or 40% would not result in congestion at that point at certain times when traffic load is at capacity. Unless they are going to extend the 4th lanes at least to Massaponax, that will be a result of building segments as funding becomes available. Same with extending the reversible roadway. Nothing unforeseen about it.
Seems like it was unforeseen. Why build an expensive overpass when a simple merge would do?
That is part of the permanent design to provide a southbound exit from the reversible roadway to the southbound general purpose roadway so that HOT traffic can exit at VA-610 at Garrisonville.
Quote from: mrsman on January 06, 2018, 09:24:23 PM
The Garrisonville HOT lane extension was a key problem of design. Certainly it reduced the problems that existed in Dumfries, due to the fact that it moved the problem further down the line. But it exacerbated the merging problem - the new merge at Garrisonville is a lot worse than the old merge at Dumfries. The real problem is that you have 3 southbound general lanes merging with 2 southbound (part time) HOT lanes to form 3 southbound lanes. A "fair" merge would have the 3 general lanes merging into 2 and the 2 HOT lanes merging into 1 adn then the 2 generals and the 1 HOt seemlesslly merging into 3 generals. But neither design is like that. The HOT lanes do not get lanes of their own and both are forced to merge in at the same time. (There is a similar problem at the north end of the 495 HOT lanes near the American Legion Bridge.
Agreed which is why I believe that even with a substantial amount of traffic getting off at VA-3(Exit 130), the future merge created by the southbound Rappahannock River Crossing project between the regular and CD lanes(5 lanes choked down into 3 lanes) will result in a new southbound bottleneck unless at least one of those additional lanes is extended down to US-1/US-17(Exit 126).
Quote from: mrsman on January 06, 2018, 09:24:23 PM
What they have recently done has helped tremendously. Having the right HOT lane merge into the right side of the general lanes before the Garrisonville exit and the left HOT lane merge into the left side of I-95 has separated the merging and made it more manageable.
Although the 2 mile HOT lane extension has definitely improved the Garrisonville problem, I wouldn't use the word tremendously as the Garrisonville vicinity is still a regular bottleneck in the region with the FredEX project still greatly needed.
Quote from: Beltway on January 06, 2018, 09:39:59 PM
The current terminus on the left is probably temporary and will not be needed when the reversible roadway is extended to Fredericksburg. When it ultimately gets to Massaponax the reversible roadway traffic should be light enough to be equivalent to one lane or less.
As part of FredEX plan there will be a direct HOT lanes exit to Courthouse Rd(Exit 140) making it likely that after the extension is complete there will be no need for the current terminus to exist even as an exit, unless perhaps for access to Centreport Pkwy(Exit 136) which even then seems a little far. It will also be interesting to see after the southbound Rappahannock River Crossing project is complete in 2022 whether or not there will still be a desire/need to extend the HOT lanes further south to Massaponax .
iPad