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

[Beltway]

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.

[Jmiles32]

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.

[ColossalBlocks]

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:


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.

[SD Mapman]

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!

[froggie]

(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.

[ColossalBlocks]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[hbelkins]

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.

[mrsman]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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?

[Beltway]

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.

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.

[Jmiles32]

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).

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. 

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 .

[aztoucan]

 


iPad

[ColossalBlocks]

iPad

Is that all the words in your vocabulary?