Interstate 81 in Syracuse

[seicer]

From what I've come across, I-481 would see improvements to its southern and northern access points where I-81 would join, and the mainline would be widened. It's not really shifting that much more traffic onto the bypass as that traffic is already through traffic for I-81. Most of the I-81 traffic is for local access.

[froggie]

I had an impression community grid plan did not include widening 481 throughout...

It didn't.  But widening the long bridges over the railyard north of I-690...the long bridges cl94 alluded to...IS part of that plan.

[vdeane]

IMO the widening selected for the community grid plan is weird.  I can't figure out a rhyme or reason why the stretches widened were selected.  When NYSDOT said widening from I-690 to I-90, I assumed the entire way in both directions.  Instead, it's much more limited, and not on both directions at the same time.  IMO the entire route should be widened throughout.

(personal opinion emphasized)

The underutilized bypass would serve as Interstate 81, so it's not as if the route in the area is evaporating entirely. Through Syracuse that eliminated and destroyed hundreds of historic residences and commercial buildings without their will and agreement, by politicians that later regretted their decision? (There was a great book at Cornell's library that I'll have to find again on this topic.)

Underutilized?  Every single time I have been on that road, there was enough traffic that one could not drive the speed limit.  It's frustrating.

[cl94]

The underutilized bypass would serve as Interstate 81, so it's not as if the route in the area is evaporating entirely. Through Syracuse that eliminated and destroyed hundreds of historic residences and commercial buildings without their will and agreement, by politicians that later regretted their decision? (There was a great book at Cornell's library that I'll have to find again on this topic.)

Underutilized?  Every single time I have been on that road, there was enough traffic that one could not drive the speed limit.  It's frustrating.

I was thinking the same thing. I have never been able to drive 65 on that road. Never. AADTs aren't a good metric to ascertain peak volumes, but since I don't have PHVs, NY 5 to I-90 ranges from 47K to 65K. I-81 south of downtown has an AADT of 82K. Enough of that is through traffic, much of it being between the south and west.

[seicer]

Never? Outside of rush hour, the LOS is acceptable. I've driven 65 to 80 MPH on I-481 outside of rush hour. Sustained for the entire distance? No. It's a candidate for widening but you can't expect to drive 65 MPH for the entire duration around a major city.

[amroad17]

I've put together an I-81 boulevard concept that draws heavily from the Community Grid option but adds a few other elements to it.  Because of the fictional nature of some of those elements, I posted it in Fictional Highways.

I do like your concepts for this.  I could see a good portion of these come to fruition, except the NY 815 concept.  I, personally, would have loved to see that happen--but it would have had to have been built in the early 1980's before much of the development around now was completed.

[The Ghostbuster]

I hope this gets resolved soon. It truly is taking forever.

[Rothman]

I hope this gets resolved soon. It truly is taking forever.

Because yet another round of studies are being made on it, it's going to be a while before even the alternative is chosen.

[Michael]

I was thinking the same thing. I have never been able to drive 65 on that road. Never. AADTs aren't a good metric to ascertain peak volumes, but since I don't have PHVs, NY 5 to I-90 ranges from 47K to 65K. I-81 south of downtown has an AADT of 82K. Enough of that is through traffic, much of it being between the south and west.

I had to Google PHV, and I'm assuming you mean peak hour volumes?

Did you get the AADT values from the Traffic Data Viewer?  In the TDV, you can click the line to get a popup, and select the volume report link.  For some reason, the AADT label between NY 5/92 and I-690 is for both directions, but the volume report is only for the northbound (mislabeled in the report as eastbound) direction.  In that direction, the current report (from 2010) shows a peak of 3,454 between 8 and 9 AM.  The speed report lists a peak of 2,866 northbound between 8 and 9 AM, and 3,153 southbound between 6 and 7 PM.  The speed report numbers are from 2006.  I've seen plenty of old data in the TDV, and it would be nice if they updated the PDFs.

[vdeane]

The TDV has data as recent as the year of update; any counts taken after that (currently only the ones taken in 2016) wouldn't be there.  Not every station gets counted every year; ideally, most get counted every three years, but they sometimes get missed (which happens often with interstates due to high volume/traffic speeds); some local bridges and railroad crossings are every five years, and ramps are every six years.  Note that this is for the VOLUME data; class/speed historically hasn't had such a rotation, although these days we are striving to get those types of counts more often.

The NB-only report is interesting.  Makes me wonder if there was an issue with the hourly breakdown for the SB report or something.

Never? Outside of rush hour, the LOS is acceptable. I've driven 65 to 80 MPH on I-481 outside of rush hour. Sustained for the entire distance? No. It's a candidate for widening but you can't expect to drive 65 MPH for the entire duration around a major city.

I don't think most of my trips are in rush hour, and I still can't hit 65, especially between NY 5/NY 92 and I-90 (which is the sections that I have cause to see most times; nearly every trip on the rest of I-481 has been specifically to clinch parts of it, though I have had issues on the southern end as well; no issue with the northern end, but then, I've only been on that part of it once).

[Buffaboy]

Why don't they route it along the train tracks to the west and up to the T interchange at I-690, and then continue northward?

[froggie]

They looked at that, but A) those tracks are still active, and B) not enough rail ROW to shoehorn a freeway in there without requiring significant land takings adjacent to the railroad.

[TML]

As a former Syracuse resident (having lived there from 1994-1999), I went through this stretch of 81 countless times, and even now, most map websites and GPS devices will direct me over 81 in downtown Syracuse when traveling between points south (e.g. NYC, Binghamton, etc.) and points west (e.g. Rochester, Buffalo, Toronto, etc.). So this is definitely a very well utilized freeway.

After careful consideration of this issue, I support keeping 81 on its present course and I do not support rerouting 81 onto 481. I believe that rerouting 81 onto 481 will unduly favor the city of Syracuse at the expense of outlying areas: while the city itself may seem improved, outlying areas will see increased traffic (especially commercial traffic) resulting in more noise and/or pollution. The eastern/northern suburbs will have increased traffic as a direct result of 481 being changed to 81, while the southern/western suburbs will have increased traffic as a result of the increased overall distance of 81, which would lead many to exit 81 south of Syracuse and travel onto suburban (non-freeway) roads in those areas.

That said, however, it seems to me like there is no single solution which will make everyone involved happy. The simplest solution, which is rehabilitation of the existing viaduct, will keep everything (the routing of 81, existing buildings, etc.) as-is, but will not fix features of the highway which do not conform to modern standards. The two "finalist" options presented by the DOT will each leave winners and losers: the new viaduct option will probably leave those in the city (especially those associated with the affected buildings) unhappy, while the community grid & reroute option will probably leave those in outlying areas unhappy. The tunnel and depressed highway options, which some say satisfies both people who want the viaduct gone for good as well as those who want 81 to remain on its present course, are not favored by the DOT due to their relatively high costs compared to other options, as well as potential logistical challenges with the terrain below.

I have noticed that even lawmakers (local, state, and federal) have gotten involved in this issue. I suspect that if TPTB chooses either of the "finalist" options mentioned above, protests will follow. I note that protests have already occurred in Denver as a result of the 70 viaduct replacement project there, and given the sentiment here in the Syracuse area, I have every reason to believe that there will be similar protests - perhaps even stronger than those in Denver - here once TPTB announces a decision. I think the final outcome will probably depend on which side lobbies harder.

[sparker]

I have noticed that even lawmakers (local, state, and federal) have gotten involved in this issue. I suspect that if TPTB chooses either of the "finalist" options mentioned above, protests will follow. I note that protests have already occurred in Denver as a result of the 70 viaduct replacement project there, and given the sentiment here in the Syracuse area, I have every reason to believe that there will be similar protests - perhaps even stronger than those in Denver - here once TPTB announces a decision. I think the final outcome will probably depend on which side lobbies harder.

Politics -- and its byproduct, political will -- has proven to be the proverbial "double-edged sword"; used to both place facilities that have less than consensus approval as well as remove them to satisfy the desires of a particular constituency.  For better or worse, that's the norm within the realm of transportation policy these days. 

[Michael]

I saw a Reddit thread a few days ago that had a link to a site called Without 81, which compares driving directions in Syracuse with and without I-81.  Something must be wrong with the code since most of the routes I tried still used I-81 even on the "without I-81" directions.

[Alps]

I saw a Reddit thread a few days ago that had a link to a site called Without 81, which compares driving directions in Syracuse with and without I-81.  Something must be wrong with the code since most of the routes I tried still used I-81 even on the "without I-81" directions.

Or they're making a point.

[froggie]

And let's face it, most of the thru traffic using the viaduct is going between south and west.

My experience is that this isn't the case.  This is backed up by what NYSDOT found when they did a through traffic check near the beginning of the I-81 studies.  First thing they found is that there's less than 6,000 through vehicles a day.  Second thing they found is there's more traffic continuing north on 81 than there is going from the south to either direction on the Thruway.

[cl94]

And let's face it, most of the thru traffic using the viaduct is going between south and west.

My experience is that this isn't the case.  This is backed up by what NYSDOT found when they did a through traffic check near the beginning of the I-81 studies.  First thing they found is that there's less than 6,000 through vehicles a day.  Second thing they found is there's more traffic continuing north on 81 than there is going from the south to either direction on the Thruway.

Precisely. Traffic from the south generally gets off around what was Carousel Center or further south. A lot of the traffic between Binghamton and Buffalo uses I-86/390, NY 63, and US 20 to avoid the toll.

[vdeane]

Traffic going between Watertown and Binghamton is already directed to I-481.  Traffic between the south and east already takes I-481 or I-88 depending on origin/destination.  It's only traffic between the south/west that HAS to take I-81 (and yes, it is faster to do so over I-86 and I-390).  I-481 is a bit of a detour, plus it already has enough traffic that you can't drive the speed limit, and the official widening plans are IMO less that what is needed NOW, much less what will be needed when you get rid of I-81.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[froggie]

I assume "through traffic" excludes those headed to I-690, which is problematic, since I-690 serves those traveling between south and west. Obviously, anyone originating south of Syracuse isn't going to get on the thruway at the I-81/thruway interchange. Eastbound uses I-481, westbound uses the viaduct (but then I-690).

You tell me...

Bottom line:  there's not a whole lot of through traffic.  And over half of what is there is strictly I-81 through traffic which could easily be diverted to I-481 (especially with the proposed direct route connections) should the Boulevard option be chosen.

[froggie]

They could.  And they would if the viaduct were ever shut down for any reason (which occasionally does happen).

I would agree that the mitigation they currently have planned for the Boulevard option is insufficient (especially the I-481 segments that vdeane mentioned).  But I'm also not convinced that the Boulevard is a bad option and that additional mitigation could not be included.   In fact, what I had in mind would effectively cover things and likely still cost less than the viaduct replacement option.

[Henry]

They should look to The Embarcadero to see how a boulevard can effectively replace a freeway if it is done right. Sure, CA 480 would've been a quick way to get from one bridge to the other, but as completed, it would also have destroyed too much of San Francisco to recover.

BTW, are there still plans to remove I-83 in Baltimore?

[vdeane]

The big difference between I-81 and I-480 is that I-480 was never completed.  What was removed was essentially a spur that quickly petered out onto surface streets anyways.

[froggie]

Depends what you define as "significant".  From Exit 39 to 81 at Nedrow, it's 8 miles longer taking 690 to 481, and 10 miles longer staying on the Thruway to 481.  For long-distance travelers, that's not really a high percentage of overall trip length.

But you're also talking about only around 2,000 vpd who are through travelers in those directions.  Small potatoes.

BTW, for "variety", there's a route from Exit 41, via NY 318, US 20, NY 34, and NY 90 that's 20 miles shorter and only a few minutes longer than going through Syracuse.

[Alps]

They should look to The Embarcadero to see how a boulevard can effectively replace a freeway if it is done right. Sure, CA 480 would've been a quick way to get from one bridge to the other, but as completed, it would also have destroyed too much of San Francisco to recover.

BTW, are there still plans to remove I-83 in Baltimore?

The Embarcadero is clogged with slow traffic at all hours with all of its non-sequentially timed lights. Your point? I'm tired of removing freeways just because they're urban or elevated. There is enough traffic to warrant a freeway, even if most of it isn't through, and that is still the most efficient way to distribute downtown traffic. Instead of talking about how good Syracuse will be without a freeway, we should be discussing how best to rebuild it.