Interstate 81 in Syracuse

[Rothman]

That's fine that the thread discussed all the options that were being considered.  However, as was just pointed out, the only options still on the table are the community grid alternative or replacing the viaduct for the costs mentioned in the NYSDOT .pdf.  All other ideas are no longer officially considered.

My personal bet:  The thing will be replaced.

With Cuomo II committing to numerous transportation projects - Tappan Zee, La Guardia, Penn station, NYC bus terminal - the big question is if anything would happen before old viaduct collapses, or all funds are already spent...

I don't think that is the big question.  The big question is what are the consequences of the funding mechanisms chosen for the projects.  They will all get done, but what is NY doing to the amount of its state debt and flexibility to use federal funds, when it may be pushing closer to its AC limit or limiting the remaining state funds after debt service that could be used to first instance federal funding.

(personal opinion emphasized)

AC limit -?

Advance construction.  Come to think of it, the annual obligation limitation would be an issue as well that would need to be worked out with FHWA.

[cl94]

Any discussion about alternatives that aren't replacement or community grid belongs over in fictional highways, as they aren't happening. End of story.

[kalvado]

Any discussion about alternatives that aren't replacement or community grid belongs over in fictional highways, as they aren't happening. End of story.

And what are those alternatives? Tunnel and allowing things to fall apart - or anything else?
Second one is definitely not a fictional probability, unfortunately.

[cl94]

Any discussion about alternatives that aren't replacement or community grid belongs over in fictional highways, as they aren't happening. End of story.

And what are those alternatives? Tunnel and allowing things to fall apart - or anything else?
Second one is definitely not a fictional probability, unfortunately.

"No build" is implied as a possible alternative.

[Alps]

Any discussion about alternatives that aren't replacement or community grid belongs over in fictional highways, as they aren't happening. End of story.

And what are those alternatives? Tunnel and allowing things to fall apart - or anything else?
Second one is definitely not a fictional probability, unfortunately.

"No build" is implied as a possible alternative.

No build would entail maintenance of the existing structure to provide it with additional design life. Depending on how bad the substructure is, that could end up being close in cost to a new viaduct just to try to support various pieces of the existing one while reconstructing others.

[cl94]

Any discussion about alternatives that aren't replacement or community grid belongs over in fictional highways, as they aren't happening. End of story.

And what are those alternatives? Tunnel and allowing things to fall apart - or anything else?
Second one is definitely not a fictional probability, unfortunately.

"No build" is implied as a possible alternative.

No build would entail maintenance of the existing structure to provide it with additional design life. Depending on how bad the substructure is, that could end up being close in cost to a new viaduct just to try to support various pieces of the existing one while reconstructing others.

Of course, but it still needs to be included as an alternative until the end even if it is infeasible.

[kalvado]

No build would entail maintenance of the existing structure to provide it with additional design life. Depending on how bad the substructure is, that could end up being close in cost to a new viaduct just to try to support various pieces of the existing one while reconstructing others.

Of course, but it still needs to be included as an alternative until the end even if it is infeasible.

I believe they are required to weigh all the other options against a no build option. It's not really an "option" so much as a "base" from which to recommend another option (IMO).

I also find it somewhat surprising that funding is such a big issue, but I dare not bring it up, lest we start going in circles here 

Without going into funding mechanisms and who "must" or "should" do something:
1. cost of the project ($1.5-2B) is very comparable with the cost of Tappan Zee ($4B) - with later being, from my perspective, much more important project. Tappan Zee funding is still a problem, as far as I understand
2. Traffic count on the section of I-81 is 82k/day. Assuming 50 year lifespan, that is $1.36 per drive - assuming no maintenance cost. If every commuter drives 10 miles per trip, total gas tax they pay (a bit less than 1 cent per mile federal, about 1.5 cent per mile local) will cover about quarter of the cost - assuming other roads need no maintenance.
You may twist that math in different ways, but cost is still very non-negligible. You can say that costs like that are shared across wider areas, federal funding is nationwide and so on - but many areas have (or will have over next 50 years I use for project lifetime) some large projects requiring lots of money, so effectively local projects still paid by local money. And road is not the only thing paid by taxes..

[Rothman]

I would hope funding for the Tappan Zee is no longer a problem since they're already building the thing.

Not fully aware of the Thruway's requirements, which I would think to be idiosyncratic, but at least NYSDOT has to have all construction funding lined up before letting a project (based upon their own estimates based upon PS&E, at least).   Awards can be within a certain threshold (i.e., if they come in higher than expected); becomes nigh impossible to award something beyond that threshold (nigh impossible, not impossible).

Hm.  Now I am wondering if the Comptroller has less authority over the Thruway's practices...

[froggie]

I believe they are required to weigh all the other options against a no build option. It's not really an "option" so much as a "base" from which to recommend another option (IMO).

This is correct.  "No build" is an environmental assessment requirement, though it is always an option in any project including this one.  That said, given the condition of the viaduct it would be foolish to do so, and as Alps noted the "cost" of "no build" could (and probably would) easily become a significant figure as NYSDOT would have to significantly shore up the viaduct supports....they've already had to over the past 10-15 years.

[cl94]

Hm.  Now I am wondering if the Comptroller has less authority over the Thruway's practices...

I'm pretty sure the Comptroller has less authority. Now I'm curious. I'll have to try and ask my source on the board next time I see him.

[Beltway]

Any discussion about alternatives that aren't replacement or community grid belongs over in fictional highways, as they aren't happening. End of story.

And what are those alternatives? Tunnel and allowing things to fall apart - or anything else?
Second one is definitely not a fictional probability, unfortunately.

"No build" is implied as a possible alternative.

No build would entail maintenance of the existing structure to provide it with additional design life. Depending on how bad the substructure is, that could end up being close in cost to a new viaduct just to try to support various pieces of the existing one while reconstructing others.

In this case the No Build Alternative would logically contain a script/schedule of what would happen to the viaduct if that was selected, or occurred by default if for some reason the NEPA process did not proceed to the next stage.  This schedule could estimate when various weight restrictions would occur and the respective weight, and when large trucks would have to be excluded, and when it would have to be closed to all traffic, and what measures might be undertaken to extend the design life of the structure. 

"During the draft EIS stage all reasonable alternatives, or the reasonable range of alternatives, should be considered and discussed at a comparable level of detail to avoid any indication of a bias towards a particular alternative(s)."

"Although the "no-build alternative" (which might include short-term minor activities) might not seem reasonable, it must always be included in the analysis.  In some cases, the no-build alternative may be a reasonable alternative, especially when the impacts are great and the need is relatively minor, but generally it serves as a baseline against which the other alternatives can be compared."

https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmalts.asp

[amroad17]

Maybe NYSDOT wants the viaduct to collapse. Then they can go to the federal government saying "Our viaduct has collapsed, we need emergency money to have it replaced!"
Who knows?  This project has been stalled for so long that by the time a decision is made, a decision may have already been made for them.

[Beltway]

Maybe NYSDOT wants the viaduct to collapse. Then they can go to the federal government saying "Our viaduct has collapsed, we need emergency money to have it replaced!"
Who knows?  This project has been stalled for so long that by the time a decision is made, a decision may have already been made for them.

Undoubtedly the viaduct is receiving regular structural inspections, so nothing should catch them by surprise.  They would impose weight restrictions if the viaduct could not handle normal loads, and at some point might ban all large trucks.

[Michael]

I thought the tunnel was dead, but I guess not:
Syracuse.com: A detailed look at 4 different ways to build a $4 billion I-81 tunnel in Syracuse

Also, I find it interesting that this article from a former Syracuse DPW commissioner states that when I-81 was first built, the landscaped area under it actually actually won an award.

Another option for I-81 I never thought of until a week or two ago is a business route.  I've looked at Business I-40 in Winston-Salem, NC before, and it looks horribly substandard compared to modern interstates.  I wonder if the viaduct could be replaced without improvements and be redesignated as Business I-81.

[froggie]

Doubtful...that'd still likely run 10 digits.  While it wouldn't need to be up to Interstate standards, it would still need to be brought up to more modern standards.  And all the bypass requirements of the "Community Grid" alternative (i.e. rerouting mainline I-81 to I-481) would still need to be built for I-81 through traffic.

[The Ghostbuster]

Or maybe we could do what is most likely to happen IMHO, wait for the Interstate 81 viaduct to collapse like New York City's West Side Highway did in 1973, and then do something about it.

[Beltway]

Or maybe we could do what is most likely to happen IMHO, wait for the Interstate 81 viaduct to collapse like New York City's West Side Highway did in 1973, and then do something about it.

The first step would be to impose weight restrictions, which could periodically increase to where large trucks are prohibited.  That would increase the lifespan of the bridges.

[kalvado]

Or maybe we could do what is most likely to happen IMHO, wait for the Interstate 81 viaduct to collapse like New York City's West Side Highway did in 1973, and then do something about it.

Yes, that is not an unlikely scenario. But what's next? I suspect after a few months businesses would adapt (aka move to other states), through traffic would choose other routes, and debate would continue for another decade, now with less sense of urgency.

[DJStephens]

I thought the tunnel was dead, but I guess not:
Syracuse.com: A detailed look at 4 different ways to build a $4 billion I-81 tunnel in Syracuse

Also, I find it interesting that this article from a former Syracuse DPW commissioner states that when I-81 was first built, the landscaped area under it actually actually won an award.

Another option for I-81 I never thought of until a week or two ago is a business route.  I've looked at Business I-40 in Winston-Salem, NC before, and it looks horribly substandard compared to modern interstates.  I wonder if the viaduct could be replaced without improvements and be redesignated as Business I-81.

The syracuse.com link shows the four "tunnel" options, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each.  It appears that certain groups are so desirous of the mile long "community spine" that these proposals have emerged.   All the tunnels seem to be deep bored and only offer two lanes in each direction.  Isn't that a bit narrow, considering the expense?  Six lanes really ought to be a minimum, in an urban setting.  What about cut and cover?  Wouldn't that be far cheaper, even considering ROW acquisition that would need to be done?   Of course, ROW acquisition for an urban arterial these days is pretty much a non-starter, so hence the deep bored tunnel proposals.   

[froggie]

Given that the only access to the portals is at the terminals, 4 lanes would be adequate for what is considered "through center Syracuse" traffic.  Traffic to/from I-690 or going downtown would use the at-grade corridor.

Cut and cover may be cheaper, but would require severing (or severely curtailing) several critical east-west arterial streets on the east side of downtown in order to provide I-690 access and would have the same right-of-way issues as replacing the viaduct does.

[Duke87]

All the tunnels seem to be deep bored and only offer two lanes in each direction.  Isn't that a bit narrow, considering the expense?  Six lanes really ought to be a minimum, in an urban setting.

The existing viaduct is only two lanes each way. And that's all that the existing amount of through traffic really requires.

[vdeane]

Traffic to/from I-690 or going downtown would use the at-grade corridor.

Only one of the four options has no interchange with I-690.  Orange and Green both have some form of interchange around the existing one (albeit incomplete, at least with Green, and possibly Orange too), and Blue uses the West Street interchange.

[Plutonic Panda]

Ten years to build!? That seems longer than it should take but what do I know. They get started on it soon!

[Buffaboy]

What? Why would they spend $4 BILLION building a tunnel in a city with a population comparable to Savannah, Georgia?

That money could be put to better use.

[froggie]

^ Tell that to state Sen. John DeFrancisco, who is adamant that tunnel options remain on the table.