Regional Boards > Northeast

Interstate 81 in Syracuse

<< < (222/222)

vdeane:

--- Quote from: webny99 on October 23, 2021, 08:32:25 PM ---
--- Quote from: vdeane on October 22, 2021, 11:19:50 PM --- These days, there's no consideration for how things work together as a system, only how corridors will work in isolation (not just roads, either... bike, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure often has the same problem).  Just look at how all the traffic analysis for I-81 looks at trips to/from downtown, or north-south through the area, with little to no attention paid to how it affects trips from the western suburbs to/from the south, or traffic passing through between the Finger Lakes/Lake Ontario and the Southern Tier/PA.  While the fastest route will still likely be all freeway due to traffic lights, traffic will have to go way out of the way, going all the way across the city and then most of the way back just to make what is now a direct movement.  It's bad enough that traffic from many of the western suburbs has to take non-freeway routes to get around so much of the area already.

--- End quote ---

Exactly... I am convinced that people with a proper understanding of I-81's function as part of the regional road network are either not involved in the project at all, or have simply been drowned out by the cacophony of those calling for the viaduct removal.

I have no hesitation in saying that the viaduct removal is the single worst project on the interstate system in my lifetime - and quite possibly of all time - and it's not even close. Anyone can tell just by looking at a map for five seconds what a nightmare it's going to be for traffic going between the western suburbs and points south, and that's not even factoring in the long-distance traffic, some of which I still believe is going to try using the grid, making it more like gridlock.

Compare it with something like the plans for I-83 reconstruction in Harrisburg and it's like night and day. One represents the type of vision and forward-thinking mindset that you'd expect from a first world country, while the other is completely backwards and a total reversal from the type of transportation investment we need... I'd call it third-world, but that would be giving it too much credit, because at least in a third-world country, a project would actively make things better, but this actively, intentionally, and purposefully, makes the system worse. Fourth-world, maybe, if there even is such a thing?



--- Quote from: vdeane on October 22, 2021, 11:19:50 PM ---It will be very interesting to see how it functions, in any case - NY is a state where everything is "route X" (at least it is west of the Capital District), so I can see potential for confusion.

--- End quote ---

Yeah, something about the "Business" I-81 just doesn't sit well with me. Maybe it's the fact that most of it isn't really a business route. What relevance does that designation have for someone going from I-90 east to I-81 north, for example? I'd much rather it stayed part of the existing system, preferably as a 3di, but even an X81 state route could work.

--- End quote ---
An article I was reading about infrastructure said we're living off the investments our grandparents made.  That's when it hit me - when it comes to infrastructure, we're Rome, right after the fall of the Empire.  Once the Empire fell, nobody was able to maintain and improve the advanced infrastructure like the aqueducts.  People were able to live off it for a time, but eventually it became unusable, and Europe fell into the Dark Ages.  That's where we are.  We're seemingly no longer able to build, living off past investments, praying that we'll continue to be able to do so for the foreseeable future.  But eventually, it will fail, and the next Dark Age will be upon us.  Heck, it's only recently that we're even beginning to rediscover the concrete mix the Romans used that lasted so long that their roads were able to last over a thousand years after maintenance stopped.

I do hope someone commented about the business I-81 thing.  Calling it NY 581 or something would be far more preferable.  I'd rather a 3di for the freeway portion, but it seems like the NY division of FHWA won't sign off without the missing movements at the I-690 interchange (I can't imagine what other ROW takings the report could be referring to, and FHWA is known to be against partial interchanges, especially between interstates).

(personal opinion)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version