Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2016, 12:06:35 PM
Yep. Still being studied out and the tunnel proponents aren't helping things any.
(personal opinion expressed)
Quote from: jtsteach on June 14, 2016, 10:44:34 AM
I am concerned about this project because of some of the language that has been used by the state and local governments when discussing it. The "boulevard" and "community grid" have a level of touchy-feelyness that I don't feel would exist if the department were leaning toward replacing the viaduct. Just my opinion, but it seems like an awful lot of effort is going into discussion and visualizations for potential hipster gentrification of where 81 currently stands.
Also of concern to me is the creation of I-781 in the North Country. I don't know enough about it, but it seems like it is leaving potential for a 581 and 681 in Syracuse if the viaduct is eliminated.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on June 14, 2016, 03:31:26 PMQuote from: jtsteach on June 14, 2016, 10:44:34 AM
I am concerned about this project because of some of the language that has been used by the state and local governments when discussing it. The "boulevard" and "community grid" have a level of touchy-feelyness that I don't feel would exist if the department were leaning toward replacing the viaduct. Just my opinion, but it seems like an awful lot of effort is going into discussion and visualizations for potential hipster gentrification of where 81 currently stands.
Also of concern to me is the creation of I-781 in the North Country. I don't know enough about it, but it seems like it is leaving potential for a 581 and 681 in Syracuse if the viaduct is eliminated.
I firmly believe that I-781 was chosen for the North Country because it's in NYSDOT Region 7, much like NY 840 connects Route 8 to CR 40 or NY 747 leads to an airport. I-781 was originally to be numbered NY 781.
NYSDOT can be creative with numbers once in a great while. :)
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 14, 2016, 05:25:00 PMProblem in that there is a big enough "urbanist" movement which doesn't want highway, in any shape or form, in tunnel, overhead, and in no other configuration, within the city. They are vocal enough to be heard, and they don't care about commute screw-up.
Although I have never been to Syracuse, here's what I think should be done. Either upgrade the existing viaduct to modern design standards, or build the tunnel. The boulevard proposal should be done away with (too much congestion).
Quote from: kalvado on June 14, 2016, 05:37:34 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on June 14, 2016, 05:25:00 PMProblem in that there is a big enough "urbanist" movement which doesn't want highway, in any shape or form, in tunnel, overhead, and in no other configuration, within the city. They are vocal enough to be heard, and they don't care about commute screw-up.
Although I have never been to Syracuse, here's what I think should be done. Either upgrade the existing viaduct to modern design standards, or build the tunnel. The boulevard proposal should be done away with (too much congestion).
If boulevard option prevails, would be quite interesting to see what happens with the city - commuters switching to buses, or business follow the road. Probably both to some extent...
There is actually similar situation 100 miles east in Albany, where 787 elevated portion is similar design and similar age to I-81 in Syracuse. So Syracuse can become a precedent for Albany...
Quote from: cl94 on June 14, 2016, 05:46:27 PMI had an impression that rail line is not elevated except for Broadway bridge (that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a "barrier", though). It ends
Except that the barrier in Albany is also the very active rail line which runs in the median of I-787. Additionally, I-787 is nearing the end of a major rehab. Everything south of and including the I-90 interchange has been redone over the past few years. The bridges were redecked and everything else was resurfaced. Get rid of I-787 and the elevated rail line is still there.
Quote from: kalvado on June 14, 2016, 05:57:44 PMQuote from: cl94 on June 14, 2016, 05:46:27 PMI had an impression that rail line is not elevated except for Broadway bridge (that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a "barrier", though). It ends
Except that the barrier in Albany is also the very active rail line which runs in the median of I-787. Additionally, I-787 is nearing the end of a major rehab. Everything south of and including the I-90 interchange has been redone over the past few years. The bridges were redecked and everything else was resurfaced. Get rid of I-787 and the elevated rail line is still there.
Interchange, as far as I understood, got piers replaced as well... making it effectively a brand new structure (correct me if I am wrong?...)
Quote from: cl94 on June 14, 2016, 06:07:19 PMIf you ask me, removing all those commonly hated things - 787 along with rail line, plaza, and whatever else they want to remove, won't do much good to city of A. anyway. And beware of what you ask for - you may get it...
The entire thing is on an embankment from Rensselaer St to Division St. Within the circle stack, I-787 is below track level but at ground level, giving the impression of a sunken highway. North of there, a pedestrian bridge crosses everything. The barrier existed long before I-787 was built, so removing it won't do much.
Quote from: kalvado on June 14, 2016, 05:37:34 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on June 14, 2016, 05:25:00 PMProblem in that there is a big enough "urbanist" movement which doesn't want highway, in any shape or form, in tunnel, overhead, and in no other configuration, within the city. They are vocal enough to be heard, and they don't care about commute screw-up.
Although I have never been to Syracuse, here's what I think should be done. Either upgrade the existing viaduct to modern design standards, or build the tunnel. The boulevard proposal should be done away with (too much congestion).
If boulevard option prevails, would be quite interesting to see what happens with the city - commuters switching to buses, or business follow the road. Probably both to some extent...
There is actually similar situation 100 miles east in Albany, where 787 elevated portion is similar design and similar age to I-81 in Syracuse. So Syracuse can become a precedent for Albany...
Quote from: vdeane on June 14, 2016, 08:04:04 PM
Main Office will probably make the call. At the very least, Region 7 will also be affected, and I don't think the regions have the authority to change an existing road from sequential to mile-based numbers anyways. I think I heard from someone that, were it up to the Regions, Upstate NY (minus the Thruway) would have switched to mile-based exit numbers years if not decades ago.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on June 15, 2016, 01:38:14 PMWould be very cool if half of I-88 got mileage-based numbers and other half kept sequential scheme...
There was a memo back with the adoption of the 2009 MUTCD in New York which stated that regions were not to act autonomously when it came to interchange numbering.
Quote from: kalvado on June 15, 2016, 02:16:53 PMQuote from: upstatenyroads on June 15, 2016, 01:38:14 PMWould be very cool if half of I-88 got mileage-based numbers and other half kept sequential scheme...
There was a memo back with the adoption of the 2009 MUTCD in New York which stated that regions were not to act autonomously when it came to interchange numbering.
Quote from: kalvado on June 15, 2016, 02:16:53 PMQuote from: upstatenyroads on June 15, 2016, 01:38:14 PMWould be very cool if half of I-88 got mileage-based numbers and other half kept sequential scheme...
There was a memo back with the adoption of the 2009 MUTCD in New York which stated that regions were not to act autonomously when it came to interchange numbering.
Quote from: vdeane on June 14, 2016, 08:04:04 PM
Main Office will probably make the call. At the very least, Region 7 will also be affected, and I don't think the regions have the authority to change an existing road from sequential to mile-based numbers anyways. I think I heard from someone that, were it up to the Regions, Upstate NY (minus the Thruway) would have switched to mile-based exit numbers years if not decades ago.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 15, 2016, 11:05:07 PMQuote from: vdeane on June 14, 2016, 08:04:04 PM
Main Office will probably make the call. At the very least, Region 7 will also be affected, and I don't think the regions have the authority to change an existing road from sequential to mile-based numbers anyways. I think I heard from someone that, were it up to the Regions, Upstate NY (minus the Thruway) would have switched to mile-based exit numbers years if not decades ago.
What about Long Island? seems like down here is going to be the last part of the state to switch to mileage exits. We still dont have proper mile markers like the rest of the state.
Quote from: cl94 on June 15, 2016, 11:09:20 PMQuote from: mariethefoxy on June 15, 2016, 11:05:07 PMQuote from: vdeane on June 14, 2016, 08:04:04 PM
Main Office will probably make the call. At the very least, Region 7 will also be affected, and I don't think the regions have the authority to change an existing road from sequential to mile-based numbers anyways. I think I heard from someone that, were it up to the Regions, Upstate NY (minus the Thruway) would have switched to mile-based exit numbers years if not decades ago.
What about Long Island? seems like down here is going to be the last part of the state to switch to mileage exits. We still dont have proper mile markers like the rest of the state.
Long Island is included. Regions 8, 10 and 11 are holding everything back. 1-7 and 9 would have changed long ago if it wasn't for those three.
Quote from: vdeane on June 16, 2016, 12:55:47 PM
Would those discussions have been with managers or with the actual sign designers? In my experience, managers are opposed to just about anything that is new/different or involves spending money. The mentality is just to maintain the system and our processes as they were 30 years ago when the vast majority of current employees were hired.
Quote from: vdeane on August 16, 2016, 01:25:04 PM
Given Cuomo's recent comments, I think it's safe to say that a rebuilt viaduct isn't happening for I-81.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2016/08/cuomo_i-81_in_syracuse_a_classic_planning_blunder_1.html
Quote from: vdeane on August 16, 2016, 01:25:04 PMI discount heavily ideas proffered without solutions or assessments.
Given Cuomo's recent comments, I think it's safe to say that a rebuilt viaduct isn't happening for I-81.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2016/08/cuomo_i-81_in_syracuse_a_classic_planning_blunder_1.html (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2016/08/cuomo_i-81_in_syracuse_a_classic_planning_blunder_1.html)
Quote from: Buffaboy on August 17, 2016, 02:04:58 AM81 has no simple repair or rebuilt option. 690 is a slalom as well, I enjoyed that in a dark rainy weather yesterday.
Although it was partly built over the old Chenango Canal, one could say the Arterial in Utica is a blunder too.
But they're rebuilding it.
Also, I find it amazing that we talk more about tearing down roads/highways/bridges in NY than rebuilding/repairing/building new ones.
Quote from: Buffaboy on August 17, 2016, 02:04:58 AM
Although it was partly built over the old Chenango Canal, one could say the Arterial in Utica is a blunder too.
But they're rebuilding it.
Also, I find it amazing that we talk more about tearing down roads/highways/bridges in NY than rebuilding/repairing/building new ones.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on August 17, 2016, 08:28:53 AMQuote from: Buffaboy on August 17, 2016, 02:04:58 AM
Although it was partly built over the old Chenango Canal, one could say the Arterial in Utica is a blunder too.
But they're rebuilding it.
Also, I find it amazing that we talk more about tearing down roads/highways/bridges in NY than rebuilding/repairing/building new ones.
Well, at least they're rebuilding half of it. While the Arterial project was originally suppose to remove all five traffic signals, the project was scaled back at the last minute to leave the signals at Noyes and Oswego. Discussions with NYSDOT indicate that they have no plans to remove the other two lights at this time.
Whatever they decide to do with I-81 through Syracuse (personally I'm a fan of rebuilding the viaduct), I just hope they do it all the way.
Quote from: Rothman on August 19, 2016, 02:16:48 PMHow much is a "few years" for a big project in NY? I would expect 10 minimum, 25 realistic...
I half-wonder if they'll tear down the viaduct only to start a new project to rebuild a through north-south freeway a few years later.
Quote from: kalvado on August 19, 2016, 02:40:38 PMQuote from: Rothman on August 19, 2016, 02:16:48 PMHow much is a "few years" for a big project in NY? I would expect 10 minimum, 25 realistic...
I half-wonder if they'll tear down the viaduct only to start a new project to rebuild a through north-south freeway a few years later.
Quote from: Rothman on August 19, 2016, 03:17:22 PMQuote from: kalvado on August 19, 2016, 02:40:38 PMQuote from: Rothman on August 19, 2016, 02:16:48 PMHow much is a "few years" for a big project in NY? I would expect 10 minimum, 25 realistic...
I half-wonder if they'll tear down the viaduct only to start a new project to rebuild a through north-south freeway a few years later.
Depends on the project and who wants it done.
(personal opinion expressed)
Quote from: upstatenyroads on August 19, 2016, 07:37:19 PMWho is in charge of Tapan Zee - DOT or Thruway?
NYSDOT commissioner Matt Driscoll has described the project as the biggest in NYSDOT history so who knows what they have planned.
Quote from: vdeane on August 20, 2016, 04:10:52 PM
The Tappan Zee is Thruway. No parts of I-287 are maintained by NYSDOT.
Quote from: Buffaboy on October 07, 2016, 12:22:22 AM
If they had put I-81 through Utica back in the 50s, this could have been avoided!
Quote from: upstatenyroads on October 07, 2016, 07:54:19 AMQuote from: Buffaboy on October 07, 2016, 12:22:22 AM
If they had put I-81 through Utica back in the 50s, this could have been avoided!
You wouldn't believe the number of older folks in Utica that I've talked to over the years that still bring up that I-81 wasn't built through Utica. Some blame most of Utica's woes on the fact that I-81 didn't come through Utica.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on October 07, 2016, 07:54:19 AMIIRC, several years ago there was a proposal for an "Appalachian Thruway" that would have been an effective continuation of the PA I-99 concept; extending from Horseheads (along I-86) via Ithaca, Cortland, Utica, and Lowville (essentially a large reverse - "C") and merging with I-81 near Watertown. Whether that was a latter-day attempt to compensate for the actual 1957 Syracuse I-81 alignment or just a '90's attempt to breathe life into the Utica commercial scene is a matter for speculation; I haven't hear a peep about any attempts to revive this plan for years.Quote from: Buffaboy on October 07, 2016, 12:22:22 AM
If they had put I-81 through Utica back in the 50s, this could have been avoided!
You wouldn't believe the number of older folks in Utica that I've talked to over the years that still bring up that I-81 wasn't built through Utica. Some blame most of Utica's woes on the fact that I-81 didn't come through Utica.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on October 07, 2016, 07:54:19 AMWhat would Syracuse have gotten out of the deal?Quote from: Buffaboy on October 07, 2016, 12:22:22 AM
If they had put I-81 through Utica back in the 50s, this could have been avoided!
You wouldn't believe the number of older folks in Utica that I've talked to over the years that still bring up that I-81 wasn't built through Utica. Some blame most of Utica's woes on the fact that I-81 didn't come through Utica.
Quote from: Alps on October 07, 2016, 09:43:55 PMQuote from: upstatenyroads on October 07, 2016, 07:54:19 AMWhat would Syracuse have gotten out of the deal?Quote from: Buffaboy on October 07, 2016, 12:22:22 AM
If they had put I-81 through Utica back in the 50s, this could have been avoided!
You wouldn't believe the number of older folks in Utica that I've talked to over the years that still bring up that I-81 wasn't built through Utica. Some blame most of Utica's woes on the fact that I-81 didn't come through Utica.
Quote from: cl94 on October 07, 2016, 09:49:05 PMQuote from: Alps on October 07, 2016, 09:43:55 PMQuote from: upstatenyroads on October 07, 2016, 07:54:19 AMWhat would Syracuse have gotten out of the deal?Quote from: Buffaboy on October 07, 2016, 12:22:22 AM
If they had put I-81 through Utica back in the 50s, this could have been avoided!
You wouldn't believe the number of older folks in Utica that I've talked to over the years that still bring up that I-81 wasn't built through Utica. Some blame most of Utica's woes on the fact that I-81 didn't come through Utica.
Probably another x81. Heck, the NY 12 corridor north of Utica should be an Interstate even with I-81 on its current routing. Certainly gets enough traffic. A decent amount of it is already 4 lanes divided.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on October 07, 2016, 07:54:19 AMQuote from: Buffaboy on October 07, 2016, 12:22:22 AM
If they had put I-81 through Utica back in the 50s, this could have been avoided!
You wouldn't believe the number of older folks in Utica that I've talked to over the years that still bring up that I-81 wasn't built through Utica. Some blame most of Utica's woes on the fact that I-81 didn't come through Utica.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 09, 2016, 04:51:31 PMIt's a welcome change to hear from people actually supporting a highway. Sounds like the so-called silent majority might be finally breaking their silence.
I just read the AARoads link to the story about people wanting to keep Interstate 81 on its present route: http://waer.org/post/majority-support-keeping-i-81s-current-route-new-poll-shows
What do the rest of you think about this story?
Quote from: amroad17 on December 09, 2016, 11:00:51 PM
If I-81 can be modernized and brought to "Interstate standards" in its current footpath, then go for it NYSDOT!!! :thumbsup:
Quote from: amroad17 on December 13, 2016, 06:51:29 PM
This has become an absolute mess. Obviously, very few leaders thought "what do we need to do in 50 years when the viaduct needs to be replaced?" Also, this is the product of wanting to build Interstate highways through downtown areas that was so prevalent in the 1960's. Now the residents of Syracuse are going to pay for a solution that has been dragging on for at least five years.
With the terrain around Syracuse (mostly south), NYSDOT more than likely chose a path of least resistance. I-81 couldn't be built around the city (Onondaga Lake, subdivisions, and hills to the west and hills just south of I-481 southeast) so it had to go through the city. Unfortunately, with hindsight being 20/20, what was chosen was probably one of the worst choices to build a freeway. This is one where once the decision was made, there wouldn't be an alternate place to build a new freeway if one was needed. Right now, it is two choices, use I-481 around the city or have a more modern version of what there is now.
I thought of a "cap-and-cover" in which I-81 would be in a trench and the streets above it, however, the water tables would prevent this. Syracuse was built amongst swampland and with nearby Onondaga Lake, there would be too much of an issue. Switching I-81 to ground-level with local streets on overpasses would be waaaay too costly.
Asthetically, the Community Grid option would appease those who did not like the way I-81 "divided the city." Functionally, would this work? Would people living south of the city want to take I-81, I-481, and I-690 to their jobs downtown or north of downtown? Would they be willing to use the "boulevard" to get to their jobs? I know I wouldn't want to do this every day.
This has become a real serious issue for those in the Syracuse area. A decision needs to be made as soon as possible. Choose something NYSDOT!
Quote from: Rothman on December 14, 2016, 07:46:52 AM
Pfft. It's not NYSDOT's fault for not choosing an alternative. It's the freakin' public hearing process and the galvanized factions that have supported the infeasible and ridiculous options that are dragging the thing out.
Quotewith each of them being clearly worse than all other options.
Quote from: froggie on December 13, 2016, 08:47:06 AMAnother often-overlooked disadvantage with the tunnel option (in general and not just the I-81 option in the Syracuse area) is that such, for safety reasons, imposes a hazmat vehicle restriction; which becomes an issue for local, O&D (origin/destination) transport. To those drivers; replacing the viaduct (which they presently can use) with a tunnel is, in essence, taking away a viable option for them. They would be forced off at the last exit ramp prior to the tunnel and would have to use more local, surface roads.
Nevermind that there were other reasons a tunnel wasn't forwarded...same as why the depressed roadway/"trench" didn't make it: the ramp connections between 81 South and 690 would have severed several key east-west streets, including Erie Blvd and possibly Genessee St.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 14, 2016, 09:39:33 AM
Another often-overlooked disadvantage with the tunnel option (in general and not just the I-81 option in the Syracuse area) is that such, for safety reasons, imposes a hazmat vehicle restriction; which becomes an issue for local, O&D (origin/destination) transport. To those drivers; replacing the viaduct (which they presently can use) with a tunnel is, in essence, taking a way a viable option for them. They would be forced off at the last exit ramp prior to the tunnel and would have to use more local, surface roads.
Quote from: froggie on December 14, 2016, 09:36:28 AMBecause there is no good option, all options on the table have show-stopper grade problems attached to them. It is either too costly, too disrupting to the city, too damaging to traffic flow, and maybe all of the above.Quotewith each of them being clearly worse than all other options.
Why do you say this?
Quote from: kalvado on December 14, 2016, 10:11:55 AMI will clarify; if a hazmat vehicle's origin or destination is, for example, near/at Syracuse University or Upstate Medical University; I-481 or 690 won't help if the vehicle is coming/going from the south (via I-81). Such vehicles would have to use either US 11, another parallel street or whatever boulevard would be placed over a tunnel.Quote from: PHLBOS on December 14, 2016, 09:39:33 AM
Another often-overlooked disadvantage with the tunnel option (in general and not just the I-81 option in the Syracuse area) is that such, for safety reasons, imposes a hazmat vehicle restriction; which becomes an issue for local, O&D (origin/destination) transport. To those drivers; replacing the viaduct (which they presently can use) with a tunnel is, in essence, taking a way a viable option for them. They would be forced off at the last exit ramp prior to the tunnel and would have to use more local, surface roads.
There are a few 3-digit interstate roads in the area going around the stretch in question, so the problem would not be as severe as it may sound.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 14, 2016, 01:40:44 PMOr loop around and come from the north. Which may be not the nicest thing to do, but for me extra 10 minutes on interstate is a reasonable price to pay to avoid 5 minutes trip on side streets.Quote from: kalvado on December 14, 2016, 10:11:55 AMI will clarify; if a hazmat vehicle's origin or destination is, for example, near/at Syracuse University or Upstate Medical University; I-481 or 690 won't help if the vehicle is coming/going from the south (via I-81). Such vehicles would have to use either US 11, another parallel street or whatever boulevard would be placed over a tunnel.Quote from: PHLBOS on December 14, 2016, 09:39:33 AM
Another often-overlooked disadvantage with the tunnel option (in general and not just the I-81 option in the Syracuse area) is that such, for safety reasons, imposes a hazmat vehicle restriction; which becomes an issue for local, O&D (origin/destination) transport. To those drivers; replacing the viaduct (which they presently can use) with a tunnel is, in essence, taking a way a viable option for them. They would be forced off at the last exit ramp prior to the tunnel and would have to use more local, surface roads.
There are a few 3-digit interstate roads in the area going around the stretch in question, so the problem would not be as severe as it may sound.
Quote from: Rothman on December 14, 2016, 07:46:52 AMAll right, SOMEBODY make a decision and get on with it or we at AAROADS.com can make the decision for them!Quote from: amroad17 on December 13, 2016, 06:51:29 PM
This has become an absolute mess. Obviously, very few leaders thought "what do we need to do in 50 years when the viaduct needs to be replaced?" Also, this is the product of wanting to build Interstate highways through downtown areas that was so prevalent in the 1960's. Now the residents of Syracuse are going to pay for a solution that has been dragging on for at least five years.
With the terrain around Syracuse (mostly south), NYSDOT more than likely chose a path of least resistance. I-81 couldn't be built around the city (Onondaga Lake, subdivisions, and hills to the west and hills just south of I-481 southeast) so it had to go through the city. Unfortunately, with hindsight being 20/20, what was chosen was probably one of the worst choices to build a freeway. This is one where once the decision was made, there wouldn't be an alternate place to build a new freeway if one was needed. Right now, it is two choices, use I-481 around the city or have a more modern version of what there is now.
I thought of a "cap-and-cover" in which I-81 would be in a trench and the streets above it, however, the water tables would prevent this. Syracuse was built amongst swampland and with nearby Onondaga Lake, there would be too much of an issue. Switching I-81 to ground-level with local streets on overpasses would be waaaay too costly.
Asthetically, the Community Grid option would appease those who did not like the way I-81 "divided the city." Functionally, would this work? Would people living south of the city want to take I-81, I-481, and I-690 to their jobs downtown or north of downtown? Would they be willing to use the "boulevard" to get to their jobs? I know I wouldn't want to do this every day.
This has become a real serious issue for those in the Syracuse area. A decision needs to be made as soon as possible. Choose something NYSDOT!
Pfft. It's not NYSDOT's fault for not choosing an alternative. It's the freakin' public hearing process and the galvanized factions that have supported the infeasible and ridiculous options that are dragging the thing out.
Quote from: amroad17 on December 15, 2016, 12:02:00 AMWould be interesting if we can come to any conclusion over here. Is there a way to setup a poll within comments, or do something similar?
All right, SOMEBODY make a decision and get on with it or we at AAROADS.com can make the decision for them!
Wouldn't that be nice?
Quote from: cl94It's not like most of these removal things actually work.
Quote from: Michael on December 15, 2016, 06:20:32 PM
Syracuse.com: DOT officials say tunnel feasibility study coming for I-81 in Syracuse
(http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2016/12/i-81_options.html)
Senator John DeFrancisco called a meeting with NYSDOT officials, and a study from NYSDOT "will be coming soon".
Quote from: mvak36 on December 16, 2016, 09:42:27 AMIf it only was that simple.
I have no dog in this fight, but the sense I get from that article is that they're going to be routing 81 around the city. That tunnel is more than doubling the cost of the other 2 proposals, so I don't think it will get selected based on the state of transportation funding around the country.
Quote from: froggie on December 16, 2016, 09:04:01 AM
And your rationale behind this statement is...?
Quote from: cl94I-81 through traffic isn't the issue. Not only is it minimal, I-481 doesn't add much time. The bigger one is traffic between the south and west. How would they get through? Most of them would take surface roads.
QuoteI worked for the Buffalo MPO during the NY 198 crap. I performed the counts in that area myself both before and after the speed limit was lowered and changes were made.
Quote from: goldfishcrackers4 on December 16, 2016, 02:01:00 PM
If I'm not mistaken, this whole "boulevard" plan came about from some people at Syracuse University. The former president of SU is the one who championed this and she is no longer there. The people who seem to think this "community grid" (so named because it sounds nice) is smart are urbanist hipsters who lack a basic understanding of what will happen without the viaduct. If you drove through the Utica area last week when the 5/8/12/840 interchange was closed due to the fuel spill, you got a small taste of what Syracuse will look like if 81 moves.
Quote from: cl94 on December 16, 2016, 01:55:19 PMIf I remember correctly, signs on Thruway direct through traffic to either I-390 - I-86 or some roads near finger lakes. Until you originate in Weedsport (BTW, I never understood if that is a place of mowing competition or a barge port for marijuana shipments) there are options other than negotiating city center.
I-81 through traffic isn't the issue. Not only is it minimal, I-481 doesn't add much time. The bigger one is traffic between the south and west. How would they get through? Most of them would take surface roads.
Quote from: froggie on December 16, 2016, 03:35:20 PM690 is 88k traffic on 3 lanes, 481 is 65k on 2 lanes. I doubt they would handle significant portion of diverted traffic.
Given experience elsewhere, there are a number of things that would happen. Some, yes, would take surface roads. Some would take 481 to 690 to avoid traffic signals. Some would take the boulevard. Some trips simply would go away. I realize this last part seems unbelievable, but yes it does happen.
Quote from: cl94 on December 16, 2016, 05:27:17 PM
The Thruway actually directs all traffic to Binghamton from the west to use 690 to 81. Trucks generally take 63-390-17, but most car drivers are stupid.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 14, 2016, 09:39:33 AMQuote from: froggie on December 13, 2016, 08:47:06 AMAnother often-overlooked disadvantage with the tunnel option (in general and not just the I-81 option in the Syracuse area) is that such, for safety reasons, imposes a hazmat vehicle restriction; which becomes an issue for local, O&D (origin/destination) transport. To those drivers; replacing the viaduct (which they presently can use) with a tunnel is, in essence, taking a way a viable option for them. They would be forced off at the last exit ramp prior to the tunnel and would have to use more local, surface roads.
Nevermind that there were other reasons a tunnel wasn't forwarded...same as why the depressed roadway/"trench" didn't make it: the ramp connections between 81 South and 690 would have severed several key east-west streets, including Erie Blvd and possibly Genessee St.
Samples of tunnel hazmat prohibition signs:
Along PA Turnpike:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Prohibitionboard.jpg/640px-Prohibitionboard.jpg)
Along I-95 in Baltimore, prior to the Fort McHenry Tunnel:
(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/maryland095/i-095_nb_exit_051_03.jpg)
If this tunnel option were for a brand new highway (as opposed to a replacement), that's one thing; but since it's replacing an existing viaduct, that drawback needs to be discussed/addressed (if such hasn't already been done so).
Quote from: Rothman on December 16, 2016, 09:09:45 AMQuote from: Michael on December 15, 2016, 06:20:32 PM
Syracuse.com: DOT officials say tunnel feasibility study coming for I-81 in Syracuse
(http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2016/12/i-81_options.html)
Senator John DeFrancisco called a meeting with NYSDOT officials, and a study from NYSDOT "will be coming soon".
Talk about p***ing money down the drain. What a freakin' waste.
(personal opinion expressed)
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 19, 2016, 01:46:37 PM
They should rebuild the existing viaduct to modern design standards, and possibly add an additional lane in each direction. Enough said!
Quote from: Michael on January 11, 2017, 04:34:35 PM
I saw that on Syracuse.com about an hour before your post, but didn't have time to post the link. Governor Cuomo directed NYSDOT to do it this time. I have a feeling that in the end, it will be a boulevard. I wouldn't be surprised if this study is just for show.
Syracuse.com: After 4 years of study, Cuomo orders new study on I-81 project (http://www.syracuse.com/state/index.ssf/2017/01/syracuse_cuomo_state_of_the_state_i-81_cny.html)
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 11, 2017, 04:58:31 PMMy bet that every time an alternative is finally chosen, one of affluent Cuomo's friends give him a call and asks for a second look. And there are way to many friends...
Haven't they studied this enough? Pick an alternative, design it, fund it, and build it! At this rate, the viaduct will collapse before they're through arguing about how to replace it.
Quote from: Michael on January 11, 2017, 05:35:17 PM
If the community grid is chosen, I wonder how much (if anything) would be saved as opposed to going with a replacement viaduct or tunnel in the first place.
QuoteThere seems to be a ton of political opposition to full removal.
Quote from: DJStephens on January 12, 2017, 12:09:51 PM
This appears to be the first time a movement to remove a section of a major highway is being considered. A true inter-state route, not a stub such as Detroits I-375 or New Havens route 34. May wind up very badly, if the vocal minority wins out, and the route through Syracuse is decommissioned.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on January 12, 2017, 01:19:53 PM
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.)
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on January 12, 2017, 02:22:04 PM
What is the cost breakdown of adding a lane to the bypass versus demolition-and-reconstruction of the viaduct or tunnel? Surely adding one lane where there is a wide median and support for an addition lane will be cheaper.
QuoteCost will probably end up being even because of that. Bridges as they are are ~30 feet wide and, when widened, need full shoulders to meet standards.
Quote from: froggie on January 12, 2017, 03:06:58 PMI had an impression community grid plan did not include widening 481 throughout...QuoteCost will probably end up being even because of that. Bridges as they are are ~30 feet wide and, when widened, need full shoulders to meet standards.
I think you're overstating the costs of improving I-481, especially considering that widening the long bridge you're referring to was already factored into the Community Grid cost estimate. I also think you're overstating the amount of traffic that would flood I-481.
Quote from: kalvadoI had an impression community grid plan did not include widening 481 throughout...
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on January 12, 2017, 01:19:53 PMUnderutilized? Every single time I have been on that road, there was enough traffic that one could not drive the speed limit. It's frustrating.
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.)
Quote from: vdeane on January 12, 2017, 08:23:51 PMQuote from: Sherman Cahal on January 12, 2017, 01:19:53 PMUnderutilized? Every single time I have been on that road, there was enough traffic that one could not drive the speed limit. It's frustrating.
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.)
Quote from: froggie on January 11, 2017, 01:36:15 PMI 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.
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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19512).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 13, 2017, 06:01:24 PM
I hope this gets resolved soon. It truly is taking forever.
Quote from: cl94 on January 12, 2017, 08:40:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on January 13, 2017, 08:31:24 AMI 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).
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.
Quote from: TML on February 19, 2017, 11:53:37 PM
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.
Quote from: Michael on October 21, 2017, 08:27:51 PMOr they're making a point. :-D
I saw a Reddit thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/Syracuse/comments/75jat9/i81_calling_all_urban_planners_architects) a few days ago that had a link to a site called Without 81 (http://without81.com), 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.
QuoteAnd let's face it, most of the thru traffic using the viaduct is going between south and west.
Quote from: froggie on October 24, 2017, 08:47:30 AMQuoteAnd 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.
Quote from: webny99I 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).
Quote from: Henry on October 25, 2017, 10:26:46 AMThe 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.
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?
Quote from: Alps on October 26, 2017, 11:14:54 AMWell, there are enough people who believe highway in downtown is a worst thing ever - and democracy means their voice is also heard.. We can disagreee with them, but they do have some point.Quote from: Henry on October 25, 2017, 10:26:46 AMThe 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.
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?
Quote from: Alps on October 26, 2017, 11:14:54 AM
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.
Quote from: BeltwayThe substructure looks adequate
Quote from: froggie on October 26, 2017, 11:38:50 PMQuote from: BeltwayThe substructure looks adequateI can tell you from experience that it's not.
And the FHWA won't sign off on "just replace the substructure" without substantial improvements to the geometry. So it really is a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be, and not just because of "the locals"...
Quote from: kalvado on October 26, 2017, 12:07:41 PMQuote from: Alps on October 26, 2017, 11:14:54 AMWell, there are enough people who believe highway in downtown is a worst thing ever - and democracy means their voice is also heard.. We can disagreee with them, but they do have some point.Quote from: Henry on October 25, 2017, 10:26:46 AMThe 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.
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?
A more interesting way of putting it - and there is a grain of truth in that - that old cities are not getting what they expect to get from cooperation with suburbs; and that they would do bette without looking at interests of suburbs (= commuters using those freeways). I don't really believe in that - but see above...
Quote from: WikipediaIn the 1980s, opposition to the Embarcadero Freeway resurfaced in proposals to tear it down. On November 5, 1985, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to tear down the Embarcadero Freeway. The proposal was put to the voters in 1987 and soundly defeated, opposed in particular by influential Chinatown community organizer Rose Pak, who feared that Chinatown would suffer catastrophic consequences if it would lose this fast crosstown connection. The October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake significantly damaged the structure, causing it to be closed to traffic. Caltrans planned to retrofit and retain the double-decker freeway. Various groups in and outside the City supported the Caltrans plan, but there was a significant opinion within the City in favor of removing the freeway structure. Then-Mayor Art Agnos proposed demolishing the freeway in favor of a boulevard with an underpass at the Ferry Building to allow for a large plaza.
Opposition to demolishing the freeway mounted again, with over 20,000 signatures gathered to again create a ballot measure. Prior to the earthquake, the Embarcadero Freeway carried approximately 70,000 vehicles daily in the vicinity of the Ferry Building. Another 40,000 vehicles per day used associated ramps at Main and Beale streets. The strongest opposition came from Chinatown and other neighborhoods north of downtown. Merchants in Chinatown had suffered a dramatic decline in business in the months immediately following the earthquake and feared that if the freeway was not reopened they would not recover.
Agnos continued to negotiate with federal and state officials to win enough funding to make the demolition practical, and the opposition relented. Agnos argued that the city would squander "the opportunity of a lifetime" if it allowed the freeway to remain. After months of debate, the Board of Supervisors narrowly voted in favor of demolition by a 6—5 margin. Demolition began on February 27, 1991. That year, Agnos was defeated for re-election as Chinatown switched its support away from him.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 27, 2017, 08:45:55 AMQuote from: kalvado on October 26, 2017, 12:07:41 PMQuote from: Alps on October 26, 2017, 11:14:54 AMWell, there are enough people who believe highway in downtown is a worst thing ever - and democracy means their voice is also heard.. We can disagreee with them, but they do have some point.Quote from: Henry on October 25, 2017, 10:26:46 AMThe 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.
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?
A more interesting way of putting it - and there is a grain of truth in that - that old cities are not getting what they expect to get from cooperation with suburbs; and that they would do bette without looking at interests of suburbs (= commuters using those freeways). I don't really believe in that - but see above...
FWIW, here's the Wiki account (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_480) with an excerpt (below) regarding the Embarcadero (bold emphasis added):Quote from: WikipediaIn the 1980s, opposition to the Embarcadero Freeway resurfaced in proposals to tear it down. On November 5, 1985, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to tear down the Embarcadero Freeway. The proposal was put to the voters in 1987 and soundly defeated, opposed in particular by influential Chinatown community organizer Rose Pak, who feared that Chinatown would suffer catastrophic consequences if it would lose this fast crosstown connection. The October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake significantly damaged the structure, causing it to be closed to traffic. Caltrans planned to retrofit and retain the double-decker freeway. Various groups in and outside the City supported the Caltrans plan, but there was a significant opinion within the City in favor of removing the freeway structure. Then-Mayor Art Agnos proposed demolishing the freeway in favor of a boulevard with an underpass at the Ferry Building to allow for a large plaza.
Opposition to demolishing the freeway mounted again, with over 20,000 signatures gathered to again create a ballot measure. Prior to the earthquake, the Embarcadero Freeway carried approximately 70,000 vehicles daily in the vicinity of the Ferry Building. Another 40,000 vehicles per day used associated ramps at Main and Beale streets. The strongest opposition came from Chinatown and other neighborhoods north of downtown. Merchants in Chinatown had suffered a dramatic decline in business in the months immediately following the earthquake and feared that if the freeway was not reopened they would not recover.
Agnos continued to negotiate with federal and state officials to win enough funding to make the demolition practical, and the opposition relented. Agnos argued that the city would squander "the opportunity of a lifetime" if it allowed the freeway to remain. After months of debate, the Board of Supervisors narrowly voted in favor of demolition by a 6—5 margin. Demolition began on February 27, 1991. That year, Agnos was defeated for re-election as Chinatown switched its support away from him.
Upshoot to the above IMHO:
1. Had the 1989 earthquake not happened, the Freeway might be still standing & in use.
2. Support for the keeping the freeway came from locals (i.e. voters) as well as commuters (i.e. outsiders).
3. The Mayor who supported the freeway removal was shortly voted out of office.
Quote from: Rothman on October 27, 2017, 09:13:21 AMA win as in win of inner city residents' current opinion. Long term.... My impression is that there are only some bad solutions on the table. Some are even worse than others, but no good one. Combined with upstate not having a prime time in general....
I really doubt removing I-81 is a win. I just imagine a crowded boulevard and angry long-distance drivers.
Quote from: Rothmanand angry long-distance drivers.
Quote from: Rothman on October 27, 2017, 10:10:34 AMDepending on what is considered "problematic". Tunnel will be an ideal solution - and wouldn't cost much more than the Big Dig...
Although funding is a significant issue, I believe it isn't as problematic as it could be. Unlike other states, NYSDOT has stayed well under its advance construction threshold and therefore I bet it will use that room to help fund I-81.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: Rothman on October 27, 2017, 10:19:55 AMOf course. Until they find some gold in the ground to be mined during construction....
Tunnel will not be happening.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: froggie on October 27, 2017, 10:01:48 AM
Of course, if NYSDOT can't figure out how to fund whatever they choose, deterioration may give us the "boulevard" answer anyway...without the planned mitigation. This is also where the boulevard option has a leg on the viaduct replacement: it's cheaper. And despite what Beltway posted above, I have to expect that FHWA has been in on the planning for this...
Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2017, 10:55:21 AMQuote from: froggie on October 27, 2017, 10:01:48 AM
Of course, if NYSDOT can't figure out how to fund whatever they choose, deterioration may give us the "boulevard" answer anyway...without the planned mitigation. This is also where the boulevard option has a leg on the viaduct replacement: it's cheaper. And despite what Beltway posted above, I have to expect that FHWA has been in on the planning for this...
The last 10 to 15 years we have entered a new era in the Interstate highway system, namely where numbers of major Interstate bridges are reaching 40 to 50 years old or more, and are simply wearing out and need major reconstruction or replacement. Saying that "it's cheaper" to let them deteriorate and eventually close is no solution, this is something that state and federal funding needs to address and solve.
Quote from: Rothman on October 27, 2017, 11:42:25 AM
For what it is worth, the I-787 rehab was a drop in the bucket compared to I-81's situation. I-81 adds a whole bunch of zeroes. :D
Quote from: kalvado on October 27, 2017, 11:06:45 AM
Problem of I-81 is that there is no (relatively)cheap and (comparatively)simple option of fixing existing structure.
Quote from: Rothman on October 27, 2017, 11:42:25 AM
For what it is worth, the I-787 rehab was a drop in the bucket compared to I-81's situation. I-81 adds a whole bunch of zeroes. :D
Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2017, 02:14:07 PMTo add: one of the new spans is already (temporarily serving both directions) in use & the old bridge is now closed for removal/demolition.Quote from: Rothman on October 27, 2017, 11:42:25 AM
For what it is worth, the I-787 rehab was a drop in the bucket compared to I-81's situation. I-81 adds a whole bunch of zeroes. :D
The New Tappan Zee Bridge added a couple more zeros to that. It still had to be built, and is being built.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 27, 2017, 02:52:02 PMQuote from: Beltway on October 27, 2017, 02:14:07 PMTo add: one of the new spans is already (temporarily serving both directions) in use & the old bridge is now closed for removal/demolition.Quote from: Rothman on October 27, 2017, 11:42:25 AMThe New Tappan Zee Bridge added a couple more zeros to that. It still had to be built, and is being built.
For what it is worth, the I-787 rehab was a drop in the bucket compared to I-81's situation. I-81 adds a whole bunch of zeroes. :D
Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2017, 02:14:07 PMCan't toll I-81.Quote from: Rothman on October 27, 2017, 11:42:25 AM
For what it is worth, the I-787 rehab was a drop in the bucket compared to I-81's situation. I-81 adds a whole bunch of zeroes. :D
The New Tappan Zee Bridge added a couple more zeros to that. It still had to be built, and is being built.
Quote from: Alps on October 27, 2017, 03:45:28 PMQuote from: Beltway on October 27, 2017, 02:14:07 PMCan't toll I-81.Quote from: Rothman on October 27, 2017, 11:42:25 AMThe New Tappan Zee Bridge added a couple more zeros to that. It still had to be built, and is being built.
For what it is worth, the I-787 rehab was a drop in the bucket compared to I-81's situation. I-81 adds a whole bunch of zeroes. :D
Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2017, 08:26:15 PMBut you're comparing apples and oranges. Tap is more money, but supported by toll revenue.Quote from: Alps on October 27, 2017, 03:45:28 PMQuote from: Beltway on October 27, 2017, 02:14:07 PMCan't toll I-81.Quote from: Rothman on October 27, 2017, 11:42:25 AMThe New Tappan Zee Bridge added a couple more zeros to that. It still had to be built, and is being built.
For what it is worth, the I-787 rehab was a drop in the bucket compared to I-81's situation. I-81 adds a whole bunch of zeroes. :D
Indeed, but it shouldn't need to be tolled.
Quote from: Alps on October 27, 2017, 08:32:00 PMQuote from: Beltway on October 27, 2017, 08:26:15 PMBut you're comparing apples and oranges. Tap is more money, but supported by toll revenue.Quote from: Alps on October 27, 2017, 03:45:28 PMIndeed, but it shouldn't need to be tolled.Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2017, 02:14:07 PMCan't toll I-81.Quote from: Rothman on October 27, 2017, 11:42:25 AMThe New Tappan Zee Bridge added a couple more zeros to that. It still had to be built, and is being built.
For what it is worth, the I-787 rehab was a drop in the bucket compared to I-81's situation. I-81 adds a whole bunch of zeroes. :D
Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2017, 08:34:21 PMFederal monies go all over the country. Toll monies go straight to the road they're collected from. No matter what you try to say, it's apples and oranges in terms of how these projects are funded. Toll agencies look at their total revenue and decide how to allocate it. State agencies need to work with a more limited budget and apply for more. You know all of this.Quote from: Alps on October 27, 2017, 08:32:00 PMQuote from: Beltway on October 27, 2017, 08:26:15 PMBut you're comparing apples and oranges. Tap is more money, but supported by toll revenue.Quote from: Alps on October 27, 2017, 03:45:28 PMIndeed, but it shouldn't need to be tolled.
Can't toll I-81.
Interstate projects are supported by up to 90% federal funding.
Turnpikes normally don't get any federal funding.
Quote from: Alps on October 27, 2017, 10:13:31 PMQuote from: Beltway on October 27, 2017, 08:34:21 PMFederal monies go all over the country. Toll monies go straight to the road they're collected from. No matter what you try to say, it's apples and oranges in terms of how these projects are funded. Toll agencies look at their total revenue and decide how to allocate it. State agencies need to work with a more limited budget and apply for more. You know all of this.Quote from: Alps on October 27, 2017, 08:32:00 PMInterstate projects are supported by up to 90% federal funding.Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2017, 08:26:15 PMBut you're comparing apples and oranges. Tap [TZ Bridge] is more money, but supported by toll revenue.Quote from: Alps on October 27, 2017, 03:45:28 PMIndeed, but it shouldn't need to be tolled.
Can't toll I-81.
Turnpikes normally don't get any federal funding.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 27, 2017, 08:45:55 AM
[[ ... Embarcadero Freeway cites snipped ... ]]
Upshoot to the above IMHO:
1. Had the 1989 earthquake not happened, the Freeway might be still standing & in use.
2. Support for the keeping the freeway came from locals (i.e. voters) as well as commuters (i.e. outsiders).
3. The Mayor who supported the freeway removal was shortly voted out of office.
Quote from: cl94 on October 27, 2017, 10:38:35 PMIt is pretty well known that demand for gas is not really elastic. Of course, combining trips is an option - but if I need 2 eggs for the dish I am making and realizing I am short of ingredients; or if I need a 4" section of plastic pipe to complete that sewer project - guess what?..
For the benefit of everyone, assume we have a supermarket, a Target, and a liquor store in a strip mall. If it takes you 10 minutes to drive there and gas costs $2/gallon, most people wouldn't think twice about making separate trips to each store. But suppose the travel time increases to 30 minutes each way or gas goes up to $5/gallon. You'll start hitting 2-3 of those stores during each trip and traveling to the area less often. Same idea is at play here. People will generally be combining trips as it will now be more inconvenient to travel to the other side of the metro area. If people work on one side and live on the other, they'll start visiting the stores on their way home from work to save a trip.
Quote from: vdeane on October 28, 2017, 09:26:57 AM
And how do you guys think the loans are going to be paid back? Tolls. There's currently talk of the toll rising to $10 in 2020. It's also worth noting that some of the money contributed by the state came from a one-time windfall from a bank settlement, and NY may be looking at a budget shortfall next year.
Quote from: vdeane on October 28, 2017, 09:26:57 AM
Also worth noting that you can't just spend money on interstates and get reimbursed at 90%. Federal funds are given as block grants and have to be obligated, and that requires approval from a MPO in an urban area, and there are many other interests, including municipalities, competing for limited federal funds, and the MPO's priorities and the state's don't always line up, either. Just because a road is an interstate is NOT a guarantee of how much federal funding (if any) will be available. And the state's share can be an issue too; there are more needs in the state than there are funds to fix them.
Quote from: froggie on October 28, 2017, 12:17:41 PM
It still goes back to how to pay for them. Some of those Buffalo improvements you mention, specifically along I-90 and I-190, are Thruway-supported (as 90 and 190 through Buffalo were NYSTA-supported routes at the time). And redecking a bridge, even a long viaduct, costs considerably less than completely replacing it under traffic as you well know.
Quote from: froggie on October 28, 2017, 12:17:41 PM
So how do you pay for the Syracuse improvements? FHWA funding is very finite, as you already mentioned...and Congress has been very loathe to increase the gas tax which is the #1 source of that money. Nevermind that NYSDOT has needs that stretch far beyond Syracuse which is also a factor for potential state funding. PPP? Would likely require tolls, and all the regulatory hurdles that such would entail.
QuoteThey were Thruway-supported routes in the early 2000s timespan?
Quote from: froggie on October 28, 2017, 12:40:02 PMQuoteThey were Thruway-supported routes in the early 2000s timespan?Yep...and still are per NYSTA.
Quote from: Beltway on October 28, 2017, 12:29:04 PMIn other words, you have no answer, and you're just speculating that it's possible. It's really not. There are enough other demands on funding that they don't necessarily have the resources for something like this. They're planning it now, but a cheap boulevard will win over an expensive viaduct in this era without a Federal windfall... or tolls.
It's not my job to figure it out. NYSDOT has had the last 10 to 20 years to plan for how to fund and execute this project.
Quote from: Alps on October 28, 2017, 09:36:08 PMQuote from: Beltway on October 28, 2017, 12:29:04 PMIn other words, you have no answer, and you're just speculating that it's possible. It's really not. There are enough other demands on funding that they don't necessarily have the resources for something like this. They're planning it now, but a cheap boulevard will win over an expensive viaduct in this era without a Federal windfall... or tolls.
It's not my job to figure it out. NYSDOT has had the last 10 to 20 years to plan for how to fund and execute this project.
Quote from: Beltway on October 28, 2017, 10:24:22 PMQuote from: Alps on October 28, 2017, 09:36:08 PMQuote from: Beltway on October 28, 2017, 12:29:04 PMIn other words, you have no answer, and you're just speculating that it's possible. It's really not. There are enough other demands on funding that they don't necessarily have the resources for something like this. They're planning it now, but a cheap boulevard will win over an expensive viaduct in this era without a Federal windfall... or tolls.
It's not my job to figure it out. NYSDOT has had the last 10 to 20 years to plan for how to fund and execute this project.
Why is it my responsibility to figure out how an agency should fund and execute a major maintenance replacement highway project? We are not talking about building a new highway, we are talking about maintaining an Interstate highway that has been in place for over 50 years. The bridge isn't even quite a mile long, DOT people should not be wringing their hands and having anxiety attacks over how to design and fund this project.
I have already posted details about the I-95 James River Bridge rebuild project here. Thank goodness that the highway agencies didn't just say, "Hey, this is too hard, we can't figure out what to do, I don't know where we are going to find the money, we got I-295 now, that means that we can just close the I-95 JRB and route I-95 over I-295!"
Quote from: kalvado on October 29, 2017, 08:10:11 AM
Problem is that what they should do - or even better what they must do - does not always align with what they can do.
As it stands right now, people who know situation better than you (and better than me, if that matters) keep telling that capabilities of NYDOT and expected funding - as well as public pressure from the city residents - don't really line up with shoulds musts the way you see it.
Sometimes "no" is the only answer you can get....
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 08:39:15 AMQuote from: kalvado on October 29, 2017, 08:10:11 AM
Problem is that what they should do - or even better what they must do - does not always align with what they can do.
As it stands right now, people who know situation better than you (and better than me, if that matters) keep telling that capabilities of NYDOT and expected funding - as well as public pressure from the city residents - don't really line up with shoulds musts the way you see it.
Sometimes "no" is the only answer you can get....
Rebuilding 0.9 mile of 50+ year old elevated Interstate highway should be well within the capabilities of a DOT.
Illinois DOT has been rebuilding the old Chicago expressways one at a time for over 30 years. They were built as Interstate highways back in the 1950s and 1960s.
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 08:39:15 AMFor someone who says that you don't need to know how they can do something, you seem so damn certain that they can. Stop trolling.Quote from: kalvado on October 29, 2017, 08:10:11 AM
Problem is that what they should do - or even better what they must do - does not always align with what they can do.
As it stands right now, people who know situation better than you (and better than me, if that matters) keep telling that capabilities of NYDOT and expected funding - as well as public pressure from the city residents - don't really line up with shoulds musts the way you see it.
Sometimes "no" is the only answer you can get....
Rebuilding 0.9 mile of 50+ year old elevated Interstate highway should be well within the capabilities of a DOT.
Illinois DOT has been rebuilding the old Chicago expressways one at a time for over 30 years. They were built as Interstate highways back in the 1950s and 1960s.
Quote from: Alps on October 29, 2017, 12:07:51 PMQuote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 08:39:15 AMFor someone who says that you don't need to know how they can do something, you seem so damn certain that they can. Stop trolling.Quote from: kalvado on October 29, 2017, 08:10:11 AMRebuilding 0.9 mile of 50+ year old elevated Interstate highway should be well within the capabilities of a DOT.
Problem is that what they should do - or even better what they must do - does not always align with what they can do.
As it stands right now, people who know situation better than you (and better than me, if that matters) keep telling that capabilities of NYDOT and expected funding - as well as public pressure from the city residents - don't really line up with shoulds musts the way you see it.
Sometimes "no" is the only answer you can get....
Illinois DOT has been rebuilding the old Chicago expressways one at a time for over 30 years. They were built as Interstate highways back in the 1950s and 1960s.
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 02:26:20 PMQuote from: Alps on October 29, 2017, 12:07:51 PMQuote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 08:39:15 AMFor someone who says that you don't need to know how they can do something, you seem so damn certain that they can. Stop trolling.Quote from: kalvado on October 29, 2017, 08:10:11 AMRebuilding 0.9 mile of 50+ year old elevated Interstate highway should be well within the capabilities of a DOT.
Problem is that what they should do - or even better what they must do - does not always align with what they can do.
As it stands right now, people who know situation better than you (and better than me, if that matters) keep telling that capabilities of NYDOT and expected funding - as well as public pressure from the city residents - don't really line up with shoulds musts the way you see it.
Sometimes "no" is the only answer you can get....
Illinois DOT has been rebuilding the old Chicago expressways one at a time for over 30 years. They were built as Interstate highways back in the 1950s and 1960s.
So there is always another "reason" why my comparisons aren't "relevant", for some reason or another.
I'm hearing a bunch of excuses. If they want to say that for urban planning issues and local goals they want to deconstruct a freeway segment, then I can respect that. If they want to try to cloak that decision in asserting that they can't find the money to fix this particular problem, then I have a problem with that notion.
"nearly $2 billion project to fund (projected I-81 cost)" -- where is the official estimate that it would cost that to rebuild or replace that viaduct on its current alignment.
Quote from: kalvado on October 29, 2017, 02:36:51 PMQuote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 02:26:20 PMI'm afraid you missed it - and information is somewhere way upstream by now:
"nearly $2 billion project to fund (projected I-81 cost)" -- where is the official estimate that it would cost that to rebuild or replace that viaduct on its current alignment.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/repository/2016_OpenHouse_DRAFT_oct5_Rev.pdf
There are cost estimates, reasoning why certain things are not considered etc.
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 02:43:45 PMExisting road is not up to standards with sharp curves and 45 MPH speed limit. I believe there was something else... As far as I understand, FHWA will not allow NYSDOT to grandfather in that type of road for new project. That makes federal funding unavailable for the project, and rebuild as-is option becomes more expensive than most alternatives.Quote from: kalvado on October 29, 2017, 02:36:51 PMQuote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 02:26:20 PMI'm afraid you missed it - and information is somewhere way upstream by now:
"nearly $2 billion project to fund (projected I-81 cost)" -- where is the official estimate that it would cost that to rebuild or replace that viaduct on its current alignment.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/repository/2016_OpenHouse_DRAFT_oct5_Rev.pdf
There are cost estimates, reasoning why certain things are not considered etc.
Those are major freeway realignment alternatives, with large scale urban right-of-way acquisitions, where such costs are quite conceivable.
If I lived there, I would most likely oppose such a project, for both cost issues and environmental impact issues.
Again -- rebuild or replace that 0.9 mile viaduct on its current alignment. No new right-of-way acquisition.
Quote from: kalvado on October 29, 2017, 02:57:48 PMQuote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 02:43:45 PMExisting road is not up to standards with sharp curves and 45 MPH speed limit. I believe there was something else... As far as I understand, FHWA will not allow NYSDOT to grandfather in that type of road for new project. That makes federal funding unavailable for the project, and rebuild as-is option becomes more expensive than most alternatives.
Those are major freeway realignment alternatives, with large scale urban right-of-way acquisitions, where such costs are quite conceivable.
If I lived there, I would most likely oppose such a project, for both cost issues and environmental impact issues.
Again -- rebuild or replace that 0.9 mile viaduct on its current alignment. No new right-of-way acquisition.
Quote
highways in the primary study area have a relatively high rate of accidents when compared to statewide averages.
....
The northbound viaduct section of I-81 has an accident rate more than three times the statewide average.
I-81 through the I-690 interchange has sections where the accident rates reach five times the statewide average
Quote from: kalvado on October 29, 2017, 03:06:44 PM
adding a bit more
https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/repository/I-81Corridor-Study.pdfQuote
highways in the primary study area have a relatively high rate of accidents when compared to statewide averages.
....
The northbound viaduct section of I-81 has an accident rate more than three times the statewide average.
I-81 through the I-690 interchange has sections where the accident rates reach five times the statewide average
Quote from: Beltway on October 28, 2017, 12:03:07 PMConsidering that the MPO process is mandated by federal law for metro areas with more than 50,000 people, I don't see how the state could affect that. Especially since there isn't an individual pot of money just for interstate any more; it's now one eligible expenditure part of a larger program, for which many local projects are eligible.
The state can't let MPOs be the sole arbiter of how to maintain Interstate highways.
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 03:05:32 PMThe issue is that, as a replacement, it counts as "new infrastructure". Never mind that there is a bridge there now. And new infrastructure is required to meet current standards.
That would be a first, for FHWA to refuse to help fund a bridge rebuild project on a toll-free Interstate highway built after the 1956 FAHA, when the alternative is to either close the bridge, or to realign the highway and incur massive urban right-of-way impacts.
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 03:14:48 PMFeel free to review documents linked above. DOT considered about 8 options total.Quote from: kalvado on October 29, 2017, 03:06:44 PM
adding a bit more
https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/repository/I-81Corridor-Study.pdfQuote
highways in the primary study area have a relatively high rate of accidents when compared to statewide averages.
....
The northbound viaduct section of I-81 has an accident rate more than three times the statewide average.
I-81 through the I-690 interchange has sections where the accident rates reach five times the statewide average
What sort of remedial treatments have been proposed to address the accident problems?
(Aside from closing the highway or realigning the highway and incurring massive urban right-of-way impacts).
Quote from: vdeane on October 29, 2017, 03:17:31 PMQuote from: Beltway on October 28, 2017, 12:03:07 PMConsidering that the MPO process is mandated by federal law for metro areas with more than 50,000 people, I don't see how the state could affect that. Especially since there isn't an individual pot of money just for interstate any more; it's now one eligible expenditure part of a larger program, for which many local projects are eligible.
The state can't let MPOs be the sole arbiter of how to maintain Interstate highways.
Quote from: vdeane on October 29, 2017, 03:17:31 PMQuote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 03:05:32 PMThe issue is that, as a replacement, it counts as "new infrastructure". Never mind that there is a bridge there now. And new infrastructure is required to meet current standards.
That would be a first, for FHWA to refuse to help fund a bridge rebuild project on a toll-free Interstate highway built after the 1956 FAHA, when the alternative is to either close the bridge, or to realign the highway and incur massive urban right-of-way impacts.
Quote from: kalvado on October 29, 2017, 04:38:50 PMQuote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 03:14:48 PMFeel free to review documents linked above. DOT considered about 8 options total.Quote from: kalvado on October 29, 2017, 03:06:44 PMWhat sort of remedial treatments have been proposed to address the accident problems?
adding a bit more
https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/repository/I-81Corridor-Study.pdfQuote
highways in the primary study area have a relatively high rate of accidents when compared to statewide averages.
....
The northbound viaduct section of I-81 has an accident rate more than three times the statewide average.
I-81 through the I-690 interchange has sections where the accident rates reach five times the statewide average
(Aside from closing the highway or realigning the highway and incurring massive urban right-of-way impacts).
Quote from: BeltwayI don't see any option for safety improvements to the existing I-81 alignment.
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2017, 09:04:00 PM
Your ideas of what should happen conflict with reality and how the federal aid process actually works in urban areas. It doesn't matter what you think the role of the MPOs should be. They have their actual role and you seem to not even understand that NYSDOT holds a seat in the MPO and how that seat works (differs greatly by MPO in NY).
Your ideas are therefore moot in regards to how the I-81 viaduct will actually progress and be addressed. This thread is for what is actually happening. You should post your own thread in some other place about how you think things should function, but never will.
Quote from: froggie on October 29, 2017, 09:47:23 PMQuote from: BeltwayI don't see any option for safety improvements to the existing I-81 alignment.
What do you think the Viaduct replacement option is? It's been determined that it has to go....I know from personal experience that the substructure and piers are in poor shape and rehab isn't an option. Adding shoulders is an obvious safety improvement but would expand the width of the viaduct. Taking out the nasty weaves between Harrison and 690 is an obvious safety improvement but can't be done without additional right-of-way. Likewise with the 45 MPH curves and the lane drop along southbound 81 (SB 81 has only a single through lane).
Please point out which safety improvements you think could/should happen that won't break the bank or require additional width.
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 10:10:47 PMQuote from: Rothman on October 29, 2017, 09:04:00 PM
Your ideas of what should happen conflict with reality and how the federal aid process actually works in urban areas. It doesn't matter what you think the role of the MPOs should be. They have their actual role and you seem to not even understand that NYSDOT holds a seat in the MPO and how that seat works (differs greatly by MPO in NY).
Your ideas are therefore moot in regards to how the I-81 viaduct will actually progress and be addressed. This thread is for what is actually happening. You should post your own thread in some other place about how you think things should function, but never will.
I have friends in the Buffalo area that I have been visiting several times a year since 2008. Some have been trying to persuade me to move there post-retirement.
The overall handling of this project and its implications on how the state handles things, is yet another reason why I don't want to live there.
The possible removal of a segment of mainline Interstate highway, has national implications as well, and that is the reason why I care about it.
Quote from: cl94 on October 29, 2017, 10:17:26 PMQuote from: froggie on October 29, 2017, 09:47:23 PMQuote from: BeltwayI don't see any option for safety improvements to the existing I-81 alignment.
What do you think the Viaduct replacement option is? It's been determined that it has to go....I know from personal experience that the substructure and piers are in poor shape and rehab isn't an option. Adding shoulders is an obvious safety improvement but would expand the width of the viaduct. Taking out the nasty weaves between Harrison and 690 is an obvious safety improvement but can't be done without additional right-of-way. Likewise with the 45 MPH curves and the lane drop along southbound 81 (SB 81 has only a single through lane).
Please point out which safety improvements you think could/should happen that won't break the bank or require additional width.
This wins the thread.
I-81 in Syracuse is probably the most substandard section of expressway Upstate. Inspection reports have shown that the structure is in miserable shape and it is behind salvage. And then you have the SB death merge where the two heaviest movements (I-81 mainline and 690 EB - 81 SB) get reduced from 3 lanes to 1. Something needs to be done and nothing can be done in the same spot without additional width and/or removing local access.
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2017, 10:27:05 PMQuote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 10:10:47 PMYou're not comprehending what I'm saying, or are just being deliberately non-responsive. You're just filling this thread with what you think should happen, when there is what is already going to happen and how it is
The possible removal of a segment of mainline Interstate highway, has national implications as well, and that is the reason why I care about it.
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 11:05:42 PMAnd that is the key question.Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2017, 10:27:05 PMQuote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 10:10:47 PMYou're not comprehending what I'm saying, or are just being deliberately non-responsive. You're just filling this thread with what you think should happen, when there is what is already going to happen and how it is
The possible removal of a segment of mainline Interstate highway, has national implications as well, and that is the reason why I care about it.
I just now read thru the whole thread, and there is a lot of discussion back and forth about various options, the boulevard, the viaduct replacement or realignment, or a tunnel. I don't see any definite conclusion about how to proceed. I don't see any posted official announcements about what option has been selected or is even preferred at this time. You can fill me in if you don't think I read it correctly.
Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 07:42:40 AMWith 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...
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.
Quote from: kalvado on October 30, 2017, 08:26:36 AMQuote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 07:42:40 AMWith 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...
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.
Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 11:20:14 AMAC limit -?Quote from: kalvado on October 30, 2017, 08:26:36 AMQuote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 07:42:40 AMWith 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...
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.
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)
Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 07:42:40 AM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on October 30, 2017, 11:35:26 AMQuote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 07:42:40 AM
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.
Depends on which official body. Per that document, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement has not yet been completed. That means that FHWA has not yet approved the document that has a set of alternatives under consideration, which means that the FHWA has not yet agreed. The NEPA process on this project still has a long ways to go. Normally a set of public hearings follow the approval of a DEIS. Then a Final EIS which contains the selected alternative is prepared by the project team, and a Record of Decision, and these need to be approved by the FHWA. Only after the NEPA process is complete can the project be built.
Quote from: cl94 on October 30, 2017, 11:54:26 AMQuote from: Beltway on October 30, 2017, 11:35:26 AMYou don't understand. NYSDOT and the MPO have already given the thumbs-down to all but replace and community grid due to cost. Tunnel will be insanely expensive, especially with the region's geography. FHWA doesn't have a huge say in the alternative process outside of the MPO. I know that because I worked at an MPO during undergrad. A couple of the other people in this thread are at the NYSDOT head office. We're down to 2 alternatives and that is final.Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 07:42:40 AMDepends on which official body. Per that document, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement has not yet been completed. That means that FHWA has not yet approved the document that has a set of alternatives under consideration, which means that the FHWA has not yet agreed. The NEPA process on this project still has a long ways to go. Normally a set of public hearings follow the approval of a DEIS. Then a Final EIS which contains the selected alternative is prepared by the project team, and a Record of Decision, and these need to be approved by the FHWA. Only after the NEPA process is complete can the project be built.
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.
Quote from: Beltway on October 30, 2017, 12:00:01 PMQuote from: cl94 on October 30, 2017, 11:54:26 AMQuote from: Beltway on October 30, 2017, 11:35:26 AMYou don't understand. NYSDOT and the MPO have already given the thumbs-down to all but replace and community grid due to cost. Tunnel will be insanely expensive, especially with the region's geography. FHWA doesn't have a huge say in the alternative process outside of the MPO. I know that because I worked at an MPO during undergrad. A couple of the other people in this thread are at the NYSDOT head office. We're down to 2 alternatives and that is final.Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 07:42:40 AMDepends on which official body. Per that document, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement has not yet been completed. That means that FHWA has not yet approved the document that has a set of alternatives under consideration, which means that the FHWA has not yet agreed. The NEPA process on this project still has a long ways to go. Normally a set of public hearings follow the approval of a DEIS. Then a Final EIS which contains the selected alternative is prepared by the project team, and a Record of Decision, and these need to be approved by the FHWA. Only after the NEPA process is complete can the project be built.
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.
You don't understand. The FHWA could refuse to approve the DEIS. The FHWA could refuse to provide federal funding for anything on this project. Not saying that they will or that they should, but it is possible if they don't agree with the process.
Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 12:19:20 PMQuote from: Beltway on October 30, 2017, 12:00:01 PMNo, you really don't understand, despite your constant claim to the contrary. Whatever options will go to FHWA, they will be the grid or the viaduct. Even if FHWA rejects the DEIS or any other design document (highly unlikely for a wholesale rejection), NYSDOT and SMTC will come back with a revised document for the option they want in the end.Quote from: cl94 on October 30, 2017, 11:54:26 AMYou don't understand. The FHWA could refuse to approve the DEIS. The FHWA could refuse to provide federal funding for anything on this project. Not saying that they will or that they should, but it is possible if they don't agree with the process.
You don't understand. NYSDOT and the MPO have already given the thumbs-down to all but replace and community grid due to cost. Tunnel will be insanely expensive, especially with the region's geography. FHWA doesn't have a huge say in the alternative process outside of the MPO. I know that because I worked at an MPO during undergrad. A couple of the other people in this thread are at the NYSDOT head office. We're down to 2 alternatives and that is final.
The process will just be tweaked as required and run through. There is no question of federal funding eligibility in this situation, so FHWA cannot deny funding on that regard. This thing just won't go in as a viaduct replacement and come out a tunnel or some other totally different project, as you imply.
Quote from: Beltway on October 30, 2017, 12:26:11 PMQuote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 12:19:20 PMQuote from: Beltway on October 30, 2017, 12:00:01 PMNo, you really don't understand, despite your constant claim to the contrary. Whatever options will go to FHWA, they will be the grid or the viaduct. Even if FHWA rejects the DEIS or any other design document (highly unlikely for a wholesale rejection), NYSDOT and SMTC will come back with a revised document for the option they want in the end.Quote from: cl94 on October 30, 2017, 11:54:26 AMYou don't understand. The FHWA could refuse to approve the DEIS. The FHWA could refuse to provide federal funding for anything on this project. Not saying that they will or that they should, but it is possible if they don't agree with the process.
You don't understand. NYSDOT and the MPO have already given the thumbs-down to all but replace and community grid due to cost. Tunnel will be insanely expensive, especially with the region's geography. FHWA doesn't have a huge say in the alternative process outside of the MPO. I know that because I worked at an MPO during undergrad. A couple of the other people in this thread are at the NYSDOT head office. We're down to 2 alternatives and that is final.
The process will just be tweaked as required and run through. There is no question of federal funding eligibility in this situation, so FHWA cannot deny funding on that regard. This thing just won't go in as a viaduct replacement and come out a tunnel or some other totally different project, as you imply.
I imply nothing of the sort. My point is that FHWA and USDOT has ways to affect the outcome of a federally-aided project. What I object to is your attempts to shut down or limit discussion about the project.
Quote from: kalvado on October 30, 2017, 11:29:59 AMQuote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 11:20:14 AMAC limit -?Quote from: kalvado on October 30, 2017, 08:26:36 AMQuote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 07:42:40 AMWith 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...
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.
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)
Quote from: cl94 on October 30, 2017, 12:48:35 PMAnd what are those alternatives? Tunnel and allowing things to fall apart - or anything else?
Any discussion about alternatives that aren't replacement or community grid belongs over in fictional highways, as they aren't happening. End of story.
Quote from: kalvado on October 30, 2017, 01:10:10 PMQuote from: cl94 on October 30, 2017, 12:48:35 PMAnd what are those alternatives? Tunnel and allowing things to fall apart - or anything else?
Any discussion about alternatives that aren't replacement or community grid belongs over in fictional highways, as they aren't happening. End of story.
Second one is definitely not a fictional probability, unfortunately.
Quote from: cl94 on October 30, 2017, 01:29:57 PMNo 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.Quote from: kalvado on October 30, 2017, 01:10:10 PMQuote from: cl94 on October 30, 2017, 12:48:35 PMAnd what are those alternatives? Tunnel and allowing things to fall apart - or anything else?
Any discussion about alternatives that aren't replacement or community grid belongs over in fictional highways, as they aren't happening. End of story.
Second one is definitely not a fictional probability, unfortunately.
"No build" is implied as a possible alternative.
Quote from: Alps on October 30, 2017, 07:33:34 PMQuote from: cl94 on October 30, 2017, 01:29:57 PMNo 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.Quote from: kalvado on October 30, 2017, 01:10:10 PMQuote from: cl94 on October 30, 2017, 12:48:35 PMAnd what are those alternatives? Tunnel and allowing things to fall apart - or anything else?
Any discussion about alternatives that aren't replacement or community grid belongs over in fictional highways, as they aren't happening. End of story.
Second one is definitely not a fictional probability, unfortunately.
"No build" is implied as a possible alternative.
Quote from: webny99 on October 31, 2017, 12:37:50 AMQuote from: cl94 on October 30, 2017, 07:41:50 PMQuote from: Alps on October 30, 2017, 07:33:34 PMOf course, but it still needs to be included as an alternative until the end even if it is infeasible.
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.
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 :spin:
Quote from: webny99I 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).
Quote from: Rothman on October 31, 2017, 08:24:26 AM
Hm. Now I am wondering if the Comptroller has less authority over the Thruway's practices...
Quote from: Alps on October 30, 2017, 07:33:34 PMQuote from: cl94 on October 30, 2017, 01:29:57 PMNo 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.Quote from: kalvado on October 30, 2017, 01:10:10 PM"No build" is implied as a possible alternative.Quote from: cl94 on October 30, 2017, 12:48:35 PMAnd what are those alternatives? Tunnel and allowing things to fall apart - or anything else?
Any discussion about alternatives that aren't replacement or community grid belongs over in fictional highways, as they aren't happening. End of story.
Second one is definitely not a fictional probability, unfortunately.
Quote from: amroad17 on November 10, 2017, 10:18:16 PM
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.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 06, 2017, 06:06:12 PM
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.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 06, 2017, 06:06:12 PMYes, 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.
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.
Quote from: Michael on December 05, 2017, 06:21:25 PM
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 (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2017/12/i-81_tunnel_study_slideshow.html)
Also, I find it interesting that this (http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/09/interstate_81_once_was_a_sign_of_progress_so_can_its_replacement_commentary.html) 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.
Quote from: DJStephens on December 10, 2017, 04:30:58 PM
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.
Quote from: froggie on December 10, 2017, 06:00:08 PMOnly 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.
Traffic to/from I-690 or going downtown would use the at-grade corridor.
Quote from: froggie on December 15, 2017, 10:31:58 AMAnd I do see his point. Other than being somewhat pricey, tunnel option is the best one. Bang for the buck is quite low for all of the options, though, so tunnel doesn't quite stand out on that aspect as well.
^ Tell that to state Sen. John DeFrancisco, who is adamant that tunnel options remain on the table.
Quote from: kalvado on December 15, 2017, 11:09:58 AMIdeally every urban freeway would be in a tunnel, except for the cost.Quote from: froggie on December 15, 2017, 10:31:58 AMAnd I do see his point. Other than being somewhat pricey, tunnel option is the best one. Bang for the buck is quite low for all of the options, though, so tunnel doesn't quite stand out on that aspect as well.
^ Tell that to state Sen. John DeFrancisco, who is adamant that tunnel options remain on the table.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 15, 2017, 03:16:49 PM
I doubt even an Interstate 81 tunnel will ever be built. In fact, I'd be very surprised if any more road tunnels are built in the United States, after the SR-99 Alaskan Way Viaduct Tunnel is completed, although I believe that mentality should change.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 16, 2017, 03:25:23 AMnot if they build the park over it. he's talking bored tunnelsQuote from: The Ghostbuster on December 15, 2017, 03:16:49 PM
I doubt even an Interstate 81 tunnel will ever be built. In fact, I'd be very surprised if any more road tunnels are built in the United States, after the SR-99 Alaskan Way Viaduct Tunnel is completed, although I believe that mentality should change.
Does freeways going under newly constructed parks over it count? I'm talking 500-1000 feet long.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 15, 2017, 03:16:49 PM
I doubt even an Interstate 81 tunnel will ever be built. In fact, I'd be very surprised if any more road tunnels are built in the United States, after the SR-99 Alaskan Way Viaduct Tunnel is completed, although I believe that mentality should change.
Quote from: Buffaboy on December 16, 2017, 04:39:43 PMonce their antimatter borer is operational...Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 15, 2017, 03:16:49 PM
I doubt even an Interstate 81 tunnel will ever be built. In fact, I'd be very surprised if any more road tunnels are built in the United States, after the SR-99 Alaskan Way Viaduct Tunnel is completed, although I believe that mentality should change.
I think Elon Musk's Boring Company will make this easier (and cheaper).
Quote from: BuffaboyI think Elon Musk's Boring Company will make this easier (and cheaper).
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 16, 2017, 11:00:51 PMThey'll be electric!
Has Musk released any details as to what makes his boring machines better? What is different about them? Will he use different techniques or just completely design a new type of boring machine that works better than current ones?
Quote from: Alps on December 17, 2017, 12:18:07 PMLike this electric AC unit on gasoline powered car?Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 16, 2017, 11:00:51 PMThey'll be electric!
Has Musk released any details as to what makes his boring machines better? What is different about them? Will he use different techniques or just completely design a new type of boring machine that works better than current ones?
Quote from: kalvado on December 17, 2017, 12:52:21 PMQuote from: Alps on December 17, 2017, 12:18:07 PMLike this electric AC unit on gasoline powered car?Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 16, 2017, 11:00:51 PMThey'll be electric!
Has Musk released any details as to what makes his boring machines better? What is different about them? Will he use different techniques or just completely design a new type of boring machine that works better than current ones?
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c3/c2/f3/c3c2f3371febc50cbbd6f8ec78718a38--gas-generator-window-air-conditioner.jpg)
Quote from: sparker on December 17, 2017, 05:11:58 PMYes, tunnel borer really has to look sexy and worth the price tag.Quote from: kalvado on December 17, 2017, 12:52:21 PMQuote from: Alps on December 17, 2017, 12:18:07 PMLike this electric AC unit on gasoline powered car?Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 16, 2017, 11:00:51 PMThey'll be electric!
Has Musk released any details as to what makes his boring machines better? What is different about them? Will he use different techniques or just completely design a new type of boring machine that works better than current ones?
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c3/c2/f3/c3c2f3371febc50cbbd6f8ec78718a38--gas-generator-window-air-conditioner.jpg)
No -- just a shitload of lithium-ion batteries in well-vented containers. I'm pretty certain one of Musk & Co.'s principal tasks in the next few years will be to find a safe place to put those suckers in a vehicle that, at the same time, looks like it's worth the $$ that'll be charged for it (at least according to one of my audio clients who works for Tesla).
Quote from: Opening Paragraph from Syracuse.com commentaryRegarding DeWitt Town Councilor Kerin Rigney's commentary "The suburban case for the community grid" (Jan. 29, 2018), my view -- and that of majority of the DeWitt Town Board -- is that we oppose any plan that eliminates the north-south connection of Interstate 81 through the city of Syracuse. It is our considered opinion that converting Interstate 481 into I-81 will be detrimental to DeWitt neighborhoods, and our community as a whole, due to significantly increased air and noise pollution, as well as increased traffic on I-481 and also on our secondary town roads.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 24, 2018, 03:24:30 PMNo, much sooner. 18 months after the old structure collapses.
How many years before this is resolved? 5? 10? 50? When the sun becomes a red giant? This is dragging on way too long.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 24, 2018, 03:24:30 PMProbably the heat death of the universe.
How many years before this is resolved? 5? 10? 50? When the sun becomes a red giant? This is dragging on way too long.
Quote from: vdeane on May 24, 2018, 08:31:22 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on May 24, 2018, 03:24:30 PMProbably the heat death of the universe.
How many years before this is resolved? 5? 10? 50? When the sun becomes a red giant? This is dragging on way too long.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 08, 2019, 05:19:26 PM
A cable-stay bridge as a replacement for an ordinary elevated 4-lane freeway just a mile long? That seems like costly overkill.
Elevated urban freeways are not popular. I think part of the problem is the design of the bridges. Elevated urban freeways are often very clunky, ugly and industrial looking. If project engineers were able to use state of the art bridge building techniques they might be able to design something that isn't an eye sore. A cast-segmental method could be used to create a more elegant, modern looking freeway with longer and more fluid-looking spans. There would be far fewer bridge pylons yielding a more open look to it. Incorporate artful touches to the bridge structures. Add landscaping and other green touches where possible. The aging I-81/I-690 interchange could be re-built using the same methods.
None of this would be cheap. But it would be a hell of a lot less expensive than building deep bore tunnels. It might even be cheaper than building a below grade cut and cover freeway with a deck park on top.
I think it would be bad idea to sever I-81 in downtown Syracuse. The downtown area has certain things going for it, but if they make it harder for people out in suburbs like Liverpool or Cicero to visit downtown those people will just stay out in the suburbs.
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2019, 05:45:40 PM
Great. But few things to consider.
. . .
2. Right of way, and groups hell bent on protecting existing slums. Existing road has no ROW even to rebuild as-is to new standards.
3. Downtown folks are sure that the road is the only thing standing between them and wealth. You know, separating communities, encouraging everything bad and discouraging everything good. SO nothing remotely similar to above ground highway will be acceptable.
It is a hot potato nobody wants to own. Can will be kicked for a few more miles down the road, and then some. Old structure will be there until it collapses. Hopefully during 10784th community meeting on replacement, and hopefully directly on the crowd attending that meeting.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on February 08, 2019, 07:02:31 PMI am not sure what I am supposed to see.. Would the city be better off without a highway? Maybe yes- or maybe not. But it is not relevant to what is going on in 2019. Whatever city's problems are, removing highway is not going to solve them. Creating new problems by whatever new approach is choosen? Good question.Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2019, 05:45:40 PM
Great. But few things to consider.
. . .
2. Right of way, and groups hell bent on protecting existing slums. Existing road has no ROW even to rebuild as-is to new standards.
3. Downtown folks are sure that the road is the only thing standing between them and wealth. You know, separating communities, encouraging everything bad and discouraging everything good. SO nothing remotely similar to above ground highway will be acceptable.
It is a hot potato nobody wants to own. Can will be kicked for a few more miles down the road, and then some. Old structure will be there until it collapses. Hopefully during 10784th community meeting on replacement, and hopefully directly on the crowd attending that meeting.
Check out downtown Syracuse around the I-81 corridor in 1956, then in 1976 (https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer), and tell me with a straight face that the highway had nothing to do with the creation of the "slums" you're talking about. Or have a chat with some of the thousands of people in upstate NY whose neighborhoods benefited from "slum clearance" and highway building back in the mid-20th century and see how much they appreciated it.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on February 08, 2019, 07:02:31 PMRacist dog whistles abound.Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2019, 05:45:40 PM
Great. But few things to consider.
. . .
2. Right of way, and groups hell bent on protecting existing slums. Existing road has no ROW even to rebuild as-is to new standards.
3. Downtown folks are sure that the road is the only thing standing between them and wealth. You know, separating communities, encouraging everything bad and discouraging everything good. SO nothing remotely similar to above ground highway will be acceptable.
It is a hot potato nobody wants to own. Can will be kicked for a few more miles down the road, and then some. Old structure will be there until it collapses. Hopefully during 10784th community meeting on replacement, and hopefully directly on the crowd attending that meeting.
Check out downtown Syracuse around the I-81 corridor in 1956, then in 1976 (https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer), and tell me with a straight face that the highway had nothing to do with the creation of the "slums" you're talking about. Or have a chat with some of the thousands of people in upstate NY whose neighborhoods benefited from "slum clearance" and highway building back in the mid-20th century and see how much they appreciated it.
Quote from: Alps on February 08, 2019, 08:32:33 PMIt is easy to pull rasist card - especially when there is no substance behind that. My pet peeve is "historic preservation" - when there is money for bronze plaque, but no money for upkeep, and no takers for all the limitations imposed.
Racist dog whistles abound.
Quote from: kalvado on February 09, 2019, 08:52:59 PMThe words "slum clearance" imply "get 'those people' away from 'my people'". I will always react to that.
Running through the city may or may not be a good idea, but there is a lot of flawed reasoning on all sides. Like calling race card when no race is in the game.
Quote from: Alps on February 10, 2019, 01:29:02 AMWell, looks like its a good idea to expand the answer even further.Quote from: kalvado on February 09, 2019, 08:52:59 PMThe words "slum clearance" imply "get 'those people' away from 'my people'". I will always react to that.
Running through the city may or may not be a good idea, but there is a lot of flawed reasoning on all sides. Like calling race card when no race is in the game.
Quote from: Alps on February 10, 2019, 01:29:02 AMQuote from: kalvado on February 09, 2019, 08:52:59 PMThe words "slum clearance" imply "get 'those people' away from 'my people'". I will always react to that.
Running through the city may or may not be a good idea, but there is a lot of flawed reasoning on all sides. Like calling race card when no race is in the game.
Quote from: vdeane on April 01, 2019, 01:03:16 PMTHat is pretty much what was in the plan for couple of years - superposition of both options (e.g. no real one ) with equal probability for a observer (from distant future) to observe one.
Today I found out what will be done to replace I-81 in Syracuse. As you know, the state has been deciding between a rebuilt viaduct, a tunnel, or a "community grid". After consulting with some physicists, it has been decided to do BOTH a rebuilt viaduct and the community grid! The corridor will be held in a state of quantum superposition, allowing for both alternatives to exist simultaneously. It will be known as the Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger Corridor.
I believe this will become the first time quantum mechanics has been applied to road design in the United States.
Quote from: kalvado on April 01, 2019, 01:29:28 PMQuote from: vdeane on April 01, 2019, 01:03:16 PMTHat is pretty much what was in the plan for couple of years - superposition of both options (e.g. no real one ) with equal probability for a observer (from distant future) to observe one.
Today I found out what will be done to replace I-81 in Syracuse. As you know, the state has been deciding between a rebuilt viaduct, a tunnel, or a "community grid". After consulting with some physicists, it has been decided to do BOTH a rebuilt viaduct and the community grid! The corridor will be held in a state of quantum superposition, allowing for both alternatives to exist simultaneously. It will be known as the Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger Corridor.
I believe this will become the first time quantum mechanics has been applied to road design in the United States.
However, since MUTCD has no proper way to designate such quantum objects, no vehicles will be allowed on I-81 until said observer is located .
Quote from: kalvado on April 01, 2019, 01:29:28 PMQuote from: vdeane on April 01, 2019, 01:03:16 PMTHat is pretty much what was in the plan for couple of years - superposition of both options (e.g. no real one ) with equal probability for a observer (from distant future) to observe one.
Today I found out what will be done to replace I-81 in Syracuse. As you know, the state has been deciding between a rebuilt viaduct, a tunnel, or a "community grid". After consulting with some physicists, it has been decided to do BOTH a rebuilt viaduct and the community grid! The corridor will be held in a state of quantum superposition, allowing for both alternatives to exist simultaneously. It will be known as the Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger Corridor.
I believe this will become the first time quantum mechanics has been applied to road design in the United States.
However, since MUTCD has no proper way to designate such quantum objects, no vehicles will be allowed on I-81 until said observer is located .
Quote from: kalvado on April 01, 2019, 01:29:28 PMQuote from: vdeane on April 01, 2019, 01:03:16 PMTHat is pretty much what was in the plan for couple of years - superposition of both options (e.g. no real one ) with equal probability for a observer (from distant future) to observe one.
Today I found out what will be done to replace I-81 in Syracuse. As you know, the state has been deciding between a rebuilt viaduct, a tunnel, or a "community grid". After consulting with some physicists, it has been decided to do BOTH a rebuilt viaduct and the community grid! The corridor will be held in a state of quantum superposition, allowing for both alternatives to exist simultaneously. It will be known as the Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger Corridor.
I believe this will become the first time quantum mechanics has been applied to road design in the United States.
However, since MUTCD has no proper way to designate such quantum objects, no vehicles will be allowed on I-81 until said observer is located .
Quote from: Verlanka on April 02, 2019, 08:16:17 AMToo bad that there is a grain of truth in it: there is no clear future for the project, and my bet is on the old one collapsing before new construction starts.Quote from: kalvado on April 01, 2019, 01:29:28 PMQuote from: vdeane on April 01, 2019, 01:03:16 PMTHat is pretty much what was in the plan for couple of years - superposition of both options (e.g. no real one ) with equal probability for a observer (from distant future) to observe one.
Today I found out what will be done to replace I-81 in Syracuse. As you know, the state has been deciding between a rebuilt viaduct, a tunnel, or a "community grid". After consulting with some physicists, it has been decided to do BOTH a rebuilt viaduct and the community grid! The corridor will be held in a state of quantum superposition, allowing for both alternatives to exist simultaneously. It will be known as the Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger Corridor.
I believe this will become the first time quantum mechanics has been applied to road design in the United States.
However, since MUTCD has no proper way to designate such quantum objects, no vehicles will be allowed on I-81 until said observer is located .
Pretty sure that's just an April Fool's joke.
Quote from: Verlanka on April 02, 2019, 08:16:17 AMYeah, as far as I know, nobody has actually figured out how to put such a large object into a state of superposition, much less how to let people walk/drive through it without collapsing the wave function.Quote from: kalvado on April 01, 2019, 01:29:28 PMQuote from: vdeane on April 01, 2019, 01:03:16 PMTHat is pretty much what was in the plan for couple of years - superposition of both options (e.g. no real one ) with equal probability for a observer (from distant future) to observe one.
Today I found out what will be done to replace I-81 in Syracuse. As you know, the state has been deciding between a rebuilt viaduct, a tunnel, or a "community grid". After consulting with some physicists, it has been decided to do BOTH a rebuilt viaduct and the community grid! The corridor will be held in a state of quantum superposition, allowing for both alternatives to exist simultaneously. It will be known as the Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger Corridor.
I believe this will become the first time quantum mechanics has been applied to road design in the United States.
However, since MUTCD has no proper way to designate such quantum objects, no vehicles will be allowed on I-81 until said observer is located .
Pretty sure that's just an April Fool's joke.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 02, 2019, 03:14:12 PMThe joke was based on the fact that it is impossible for the two to co-exist in reality. Note that "community grid" is a euphemism for "boulevard".
A rebuilt viaduct and a community grid? That might work. How long until such is constructed? 10 years? 20? 30? Sometime in the 22nd century? By then, it will probably have crumbled to dust.
Quote from: Verlanka on April 02, 2019, 08:16:17 AMQuote from: kalvado on April 01, 2019, 01:29:28 PMQuote from: vdeane on April 01, 2019, 01:03:16 PMTHat is pretty much what was in the plan for couple of years - superposition of both options (e.g. no real one ) with equal probability for a observer (from distant future) to observe one.
Today I found out what will be done to replace I-81 in Syracuse. As you know, the state has been deciding between a rebuilt viaduct, a tunnel, or a "community grid". After consulting with some physicists, it has been decided to do BOTH a rebuilt viaduct and the community grid! The corridor will be held in a state of quantum superposition, allowing for both alternatives to exist simultaneously. It will be known as the Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger Corridor.
I believe this will become the first time quantum mechanics has been applied to road design in the United States.
However, since MUTCD has no proper way to designate such quantum objects, no vehicles will be allowed on I-81 until said observer is located .
Pretty sure that's just an April Fool's joke.
Quote from: Michael on April 22, 2019, 06:49:29 PMKeep in mind the future includes a surface grid. Closing the viaduct without that would be much more chaotic and jammed.
EDIT: I wonder what would happen if the viaduct was closed for a week as an experiment.
Quote from: webny99 on April 22, 2019, 07:47:10 PM
A lot of blabber, but I tend to think common sense will win out and a new viaduct will be built -- not right away, but eventually.
This is a major 2di used by a lot of long distance traffic and with significant regional importance. There is just no way to justify tearing it down to please a few communities at the expense of the millions of others that pass through. And it is not acceptable to compare this to any other highway removal project in history.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 22, 2019, 06:44:44 PM
"Community Grid" option chosen as preferred alternative. The bike/ped movements are gathering in strength. I-81 going away in downtown and expect to see other cities use Syracuse as an example of "hey if they can do it so can we."
Quote from: webny99 on April 22, 2019, 07:47:10 PMCuomo's been pretty anti-freeway as of late. Have you seen how he's been with the Scajaquada and the Buffalo Skyway? It's also the cheapest alternative, and it's not like NYSDOT is rolling in cash right now. I wouldn't be surprised if the constant tunnel re-evaluations were just to push the decision to a more politically convenient time.
A lot of blabber, but I tend to think common sense will win out and a new viaduct will be built -- not right away, but eventually.
This is a major 2di used by a lot of long distance traffic and with significant regional importance. There is just no way to justify tearing it down to please a few communities at the expense of the millions of others that pass through. And it is not acceptable to compare this to any other highway removal project in history.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 22, 2019, 08:43:26 PMProbably the Albany Skyway (removing the US 9 north ramp at I-787 and turning it into a park similar to NYC's high line), though there is desire among some advocates for a complete removal of I-787.
New York City is the downgrade of I-895/Sheridan Expressway in the Bronx. Which project are you referring to for Albany?
Quote from: vdeane on April 22, 2019, 09:22:09 PMWhich one you prefer? I see only very bad and even worse options
As expected, though (personally) not my preferred alternative.
Quote from: vdeane on April 22, 2019, 09:22:09 PMMaybe NY787 in Cohoes? It is in full swing...
Probably the Albany Skyway (removing the US 9 north ramp at I-787 and turning it into a park similar to NYC's high line), though there is desire among some advocates for a complete removal of I-787.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 22, 2019, 08:33:31 PM
It's not a question of pleasing a few communities. This is what the powers that be at the state level want because it fits their grand visions of urban renewal. Note how Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, and NYC all have at least one freeway or expressway downgrade or removal project completed or in progress - it was inevitable that Syracuse was going to join the club.
Quote from: froggie on April 23, 2019, 09:09:07 AMI still wonder where these numbers came from. I can see 20k traffic south of Elmira, well south of Syracuse to filter out Ithaca/Cornell to Syracuse (I guess mostly mall and airport, north of proposed change); and 15k south of Watertown, going down to 6k at the border.
To be fair...given that there's only in the neighborhood of 6,000 through vehicles coming from the south, and only 2,000 going between the south and the west, the concerns about "through traffic" and "west suburbs to south suburbs" on this form are a little overblown.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 23, 2019, 12:49:41 PM
I've read through the thread and seen a mixed response to this regard, but like the I-375 removal in Detroit, again I'll ask:
Is this really going to be that consequential a change, or just roadgeeks upset about Interstates being removed and/or feeling like the evil urbanists are winning?
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 23, 2019, 12:49:41 PMAs far as I understand, this is indeed a very significant change. This is a highway with 100k/day traffic feeding city center from southern suburbs. Dissipating that traffic will be difficult, bypass road which is proposed to be used as new 81 is already very buzy
I've read through the thread and seen a mixed response to this regard, but like the I-375 removal in Detroit, again I'll ask:
Is this really going to be that consequential a change, or just roadgeeks upset about Interstates being removed and/or feeling like the evil urbanists are winning?
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 23, 2019, 12:49:41 PM
Is this really going to be that consequential a change, or just roadgeeks upset about Interstates being removed and/or feeling like the evil urbanists are winning?
Quote from: cl94 on April 23, 2019, 01:12:48 PMIf I were a betting man, I'd put money on the viaduct falling down before they have a chance to complete the reroute/reconstruction.Too bad I cannot take your bet as I also think so.
Quote from: cl94 on April 23, 2019, 01:12:48 PMThat would help a LOT, though unfortunately the only proposal I've seen is for limited aux lanes around exit 5. Possibly also widen the Thruway in the area too.Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 23, 2019, 12:49:41 PM
Is this really going to be that consequential a change, or just roadgeeks upset about Interstates being removed and/or feeling like the evil urbanists are winning?
I don't think it's going to be as crazy as roadgeeks think if a couple of minor changes are made to the proposal. Specifically, a continuous 6 lanes along current I-481 from the south end to the Thruway and removal of tolls along the Thruway within the Syracuse metro to encourage traffic between the south and west to avoid 690. Neither of these would be particularly hard to accomplish, especially with the impending AET conversion. Like it or not, Syracuse is hemorrhaging population like a natural disaster happened. In fact, the only medium-large city that has lost population faster since the 2000 census is New Orleans (for obvious reasons). Frankly, it does not NEED a freeway system designed for almost a million people as was originally proposed for the region.
Quote from: seicer on April 23, 2019, 02:56:39 PM
And Winnipeg makes do just fine with a great metro system, freeways and expressways that serve the metro quite well, and a central city that's far more impressive than what most US cities can dream about.
Quote from: froggie on April 23, 2019, 09:09:07 AM
To be fair...given that there's only in the neighborhood of 6,000 through vehicles coming from the south, and only 2,000 going between the south and the west, the concerns about "through traffic" and "west suburbs to south suburbs" on this form are a little overblown.
Quote from: vdeane on April 23, 2019, 01:59:07 PM
I am, however, used to being able to get around, and out, of a metro area on an efficient all-freeway route.
Quote from: vdeane on April 23, 2019, 01:59:07 PM
There's also the precedent. As far as I know, this would be the first instance of a through freeway being removed in the country. Everything else has been a spur. It will only embolden the activists further, and I don't seem them stopping until every city is like Winnipeg (which has no freeways of any kind).
Quote from: seicer on April 23, 2019, 02:56:39 PM
And Winnipeg makes do just fine with a great metro system, freeways and expressways that serve the metro quite well, and a central city that's far more impressive than what most US cities can dream about.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 23, 2019, 04:37:59 PMGuess what? like many older areas, Syracuse had a period of suburb flee, so city itself is on a poor side of spectrum, while wealth is in the suburbia.
Does anyone think the people of Syracuse might unite to prevent the Community Grid from being constructed? Or, as I suspect, city residents will deliver a collective "meh" to this project, and the Community Grid will be constructed as proposed? I know this wasn't a final decision, but it seems set in stone to me.
Quote from: webny99 on April 23, 2019, 03:35:56 PMAnd in an inner suburb just a mile from I-590, too. The most major cancelled corridor is one I never need to use (but would be a glaring flaw for anyone trying to get between Greece and Webster). Where I live in the Capital District is also well situated for using freeways to get around, although we do have more freeway inaccessible areas than Rochester.Quote from: vdeane on April 23, 2019, 01:59:07 PM
I am, however, used to being able to get around, and out, of a metro area on an efficient all-freeway route.
Thanks to growing up in Rochester, no doubt. :thumbsup:
Quote from: kalvado on April 22, 2019, 09:48:16 PMQuote from: vdeane on April 22, 2019, 09:22:09 PMMaybe NY787 in Cohoes? It is in full swing...
Probably the Albany Skyway (removing the US 9 north ramp at I-787 and turning it into a park similar to NYC's high line), though there is desire among some advocates for a complete removal of I-787.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 23, 2019, 04:37:59 PM
Does anyone think the people of Syracuse might unite to prevent the Community Grid from being constructed? Or, as I suspect, city residents will deliver a collective "meh" to this project, and the Community Grid will be constructed as proposed?
Quote from: Duke87 on April 23, 2019, 09:38:46 PM
Naturally, the people who use the viaduct want it to stay, while the people who live near it but don't derive much personal benefit from its presence want it gone.
Quote
Anyone been to Big Flats lately? It was a "community grid." Then I86 was elevated though. Why was that a good idea?????
Quote from: vdeane on April 23, 2019, 09:02:53 PM
The most major cancelled corridor is one I never need to use (but would be a glaring flaw for anyone trying to get between Greece and Webster).
Quote from: webny99 on April 24, 2019, 08:59:59 AMState fair will be only moderately affected by viaduct removal. It only affects southern approach; and adds maybe 3 miles detour. Not critical for once a year long haul trip. Some ould reroute to Thruway. Spending billions on infrastructure for once a year event is also less than wise.
Come to think of it, the New York State Fair alone may be justification for rebuilding the viaduct. Fair traffic is bad enough as it is; I can't even imagine what it would be like with no viaduct, even with an optimal community grid.
Not to mention how much less accessible Destiny USA and SYR would become from points south; that's two entities I would imagine are very much against removal.
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2019, 09:20:14 AMBecause the issue at hand is not a construction itself, it is about what exactly has to be built. That discussion is going on for at least a decade, and there no consensus about how to proceed, not even a hint of opinion convergence.
Why can't Syracuse do what Birmingham is doing --
ALDOT says I-59/20 construction is ahead of schedule and we've got the photos to prove it (photo gallery)
https://bhamnow.com/2019/04/05/aldot-i-59-20-construction/
Quote from: kalvado on April 24, 2019, 09:13:30 AMQuote from: webny99 on April 24, 2019, 08:59:59 AMState fair will be only moderately affected by viaduct removal. It only affects southern approach; and adds maybe 3 miles detour. Not critical for once a year long haul trip. Some ould reroute to Thruway. Spending billions on infrastructure for once a year event is also less than wise.
Come to think of it, the New York State Fair alone may be justification for rebuilding the viaduct. Fair traffic is bad enough as it is; I can't even imagine what it would be like with no viaduct, even with an optimal community grid.
Quote from: webny99 on April 24, 2019, 12:44:35 PMAnd as they told you in other threads: you do not design for traffic which exists few days a year. 95% is a reasonable target; that means that 2 weeks a year a road can easily be inadequate for the volume - but you don't want to overbuild just for those events.Quote from: kalvado on April 24, 2019, 09:13:30 AMQuote from: webny99 on April 24, 2019, 08:59:59 AMState fair will be only moderately affected by viaduct removal. It only affects southern approach; and adds maybe 3 miles detour. Not critical for once a year long haul trip. Some ould reroute to Thruway. Spending billions on infrastructure for once a year event is also less than wise.
Come to think of it, the New York State Fair alone may be justification for rebuilding the viaduct. Fair traffic is bad enough as it is; I can't even imagine what it would be like with no viaduct, even with an optimal community grid.
To be clear, I don't think the fair is the biggest reason to rebuild the viaduct, or even close to it, but it is certainly a major point in favor. I know if I was coming in to the fair from the south, I would plan on using the much shorter route via the community grid as opposed to using I-481. It doesn't take a very high percentage of fair traffic to make that decision to cause some pretty significant traffic issues.
Quote from: kalvado on April 24, 2019, 12:47:50 PMQuote from: webny99 on April 24, 2019, 12:44:35 PMAnd as they told you in other threads: you do not design for traffic which exists few days a year. 95% is a reasonable target; that means that 2 weeks a year a road can easily be inadequate for the volume - but you don't want to overbuild just for those events.
To be clear, I don't think the fair is the biggest reason to rebuild the viaduct, or even close to it, but it is certainly a major point in favor. I know if I was coming in to the fair from the south, I would plan on using the much shorter route via the community grid as opposed to using I-481. It doesn't take a very high percentage of fair traffic to make that decision to cause some pretty significant traffic issues.
Quote from: kalvado on April 24, 2019, 09:13:30 AMIt's three miles on I-81 from exit 16A to I-690. Taking I-481 and I-690 for that trip is 11 miles. As such, there won't be any good all-freeway route from Binghamton to the Fair any more.Quote from: webny99 on April 24, 2019, 08:59:59 AMState fair will be only moderately affected by viaduct removal. It only affects southern approach; and adds maybe 3 miles detour. Not critical for once a year long haul trip. Some ould reroute to Thruway. Spending billions on infrastructure for once a year event is also less than wise.
Come to think of it, the New York State Fair alone may be justification for rebuilding the viaduct. Fair traffic is bad enough as it is; I can't even imagine what it would be like with no viaduct, even with an optimal community grid.
Not to mention how much less accessible Destiny USA and SYR would become from points south; that's two entities I would imagine are very much against removal.
As for Destiny USA - yes, they will be affected, they are complaining, and yes, Onondaga county will be missing a lot of sales tax, Syracuse will loose lower level some jobs. I don't have too much sympathy here, Tompkins county for one should be winning as NYC now collects sales tax from online sales anyway. Young people moving out of upstate also reduce traffic through the community grid.
Quote from: webny99 on April 24, 2019, 12:44:35 PMI for one am very glad I don't have to make that choice - privilege of living east of Syracuse, I guess. On the one hand, I prefer to keep my routing "within the system" unless I'm clinching things (I tend to think of the interstate system on a separate and systemic level, but this happens for non-interstates too - I don't like swapping in and out of the state route system either, preferring to follow a local-county-state/US-interstate/freeway-state/US-county-local travel pattern). On the other, making a significant diversion that triples the mileage between two points because some urbanists have become very influential doesn't sit well with me either.Quote from: kalvado on April 24, 2019, 09:13:30 AMQuote from: webny99 on April 24, 2019, 08:59:59 AMState fair will be only moderately affected by viaduct removal. It only affects southern approach; and adds maybe 3 miles detour. Not critical for once a year long haul trip. Some ould reroute to Thruway. Spending billions on infrastructure for once a year event is also less than wise.
Come to think of it, the New York State Fair alone may be justification for rebuilding the viaduct. Fair traffic is bad enough as it is; I can't even imagine what it would be like with no viaduct, even with an optimal community grid.
To be clear, I don't think the fair is the biggest reason to rebuild the viaduct, or even close to it, but it is certainly a major point in favor. I know if I was coming in to the fair from the south, I would plan on using the much shorter route via the community grid as opposed to using I-481. It doesn't take a very high percentage of fair traffic to make that decision to cause some pretty significant traffic issues.
Quote from: vdeaneThis may be a side effect of growing up in Rochester, but I view the Thruway as being for long-distance traffic, not local traffic.
Quote from: froggie on April 24, 2019, 01:31:11 PMQuote from: vdeaneThis may be a side effect of growing up in Rochester, but I view the Thruway as being for long-distance traffic, not local traffic.Keep in mind that the Thruway has 6 interchanges between I-690 and I-481 inclusive. That's about one every 2-2.5 miles and far more frequent than what you have in the Rochester area. There also isn't a whole lot of Rochester suburbia/exurbia south of the Thruway, but Syracuse has a lot of such north of the Thruway.
Quote from: webny99 on April 24, 2019, 02:15:01 PM
Adding a Thruway exit at NY 173 would provide a fourth option; roughly this (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.0028121,-76.1326081/2250-2342+NY-173,+Warners,+NY+13164/@43.045508,-76.315652,12z/data=!4m10!4m9!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x89d9fb719eee8dd1:0x48265f84bcf33d50!2m2!1d-76.3474846!2d43.093078!3e0!5i1!5m1!1e1). I am not sure how much potential this corridor has to be a major south/west connector or how intense it would be to widen it to four lanes throughout.
QuoteHow is the rest of the old routing look for the Western bypass?
Quote from: upstatenyroads on April 22, 2019, 10:52:36 PMI think you need to PM an admin about that. Alps changed mine a few years ago.
Today's announcement was one of the stupidest things I've read about in New York in years. Glad I moved out. Now, if I could just figure out how to change my username here on this board doohickey.
Quote from: Michael on April 25, 2019, 08:42:35 PMA business route can be a surface road. There's really not much standards in that regard for them. I-95 Business is a surface street through Fayetteville, NC.
I just had yet another thought for I-81: Are business route standards as high as regular Interstate standards?
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 25, 2019, 08:47:10 PMQuote from: Michael on April 25, 2019, 08:42:35 PMA business route can be a surface road. There's really not much standards in that regard for them. I-95 Business is a surface street through Fayetteville, NC.
I just had yet another thought for I-81: Are business route standards as high as regular Interstate standards?
Quote from: Michael on April 25, 2019, 08:42:35 PM
I just had yet another thought for I-81: Are business route standards as high as regular Interstate standards? I remember seeing a post somewhere on the forum about how substandard a business interstate was, and if I remember right, it was I-85 Business in Greensboro, NC. That used to be regular I-85, then I-85 was realigned on a bypass. Could the I-81 viaduct be rebuilt in the same footprint and be designated I-81 Business, while still realigning I-81 onto I-481? Not having to acquire property would reduce the cost of a viaduct, possibly to a similar cost to building a community grid.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 26, 2019, 05:04:34 PMThey don't really have much choice.
No one can see the future, but my crystal ball prediction (and gut feeling) is NYDOT is going to go forward with the Community Grid, and tear down the viaduct. And when the locals complain about the traffic problems the boulevard will inevitably cause, the DOT will blame everyone but themselves for it.
Quote from: Rothman on April 26, 2019, 09:15:55 PMNYSDOT... But nice catch :-D
Who the heck is "NYDOT"? :D
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 26, 2019, 10:22:14 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 26, 2019, 09:15:55 PMNYSDOT... But nice catch :-D
Who the heck is "NYDOT"? :D
Quote from: sparker on April 27, 2019, 01:37:57 AMThere's also NYCDOT. Need a way to tell them apart.Quote from: sprjus4 on April 26, 2019, 10:22:14 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 26, 2019, 09:15:55 PMNYSDOT... But nice catch :-D
Who the heck is "NYDOT"? :D
Aaaaarrrrrghhh........typical New York modus operandi; making things more complicated than they need to be!!!!! :rolleyes: Glad all we have out here is good old apathetic Caltrans!
Quote from: steviep24 on April 27, 2019, 09:24:43 AMQuote from: sparker on April 27, 2019, 01:37:57 AMThere's also NYCDOT. Need a way to tell them apart.Quote from: sprjus4 on April 26, 2019, 10:22:14 PMAaaaarrrrrghhh........typical New York modus operandi; making things more complicated than they need to be!!!!! :rolleyes: Glad all we have out here is good old apathetic Caltrans!Quote from: Rothman on April 26, 2019, 09:15:55 PMNYSDOT... But nice catch :-D
Who the heck is "NYDOT"? :D
Quote from: Beltway on April 27, 2019, 11:35:06 AMQuote from: steviep24 on April 27, 2019, 09:24:43 AMQuote from: sparker on April 27, 2019, 01:37:57 AMThere's also NYCDOT. Need a way to tell them apart.Quote from: sprjus4 on April 26, 2019, 10:22:14 PMAaaaarrrrrghhh........typical New York modus operandi; making things more complicated than they need to be!!!!! :rolleyes: Glad all we have out here is good old apathetic Caltrans!Quote from: Rothman on April 26, 2019, 09:15:55 PMNYSDOT... But nice catch :-D
Who the heck is "NYDOT"? :D
That is what happens when the state and its largest city have the same name.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 27, 2019, 01:57:55 PMmy understanding is that yes, these are structures approaching the end of life.
Is the viaduct really "crumbling?" Are there not less-involved repairs that can be done to extend its useful life? Concrete flaking off the piers or potholes on the bridge deck are a normal fact of life.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 27, 2019, 01:57:55 PM
Is the viaduct really "crumbling?" Are there not less-involved repairs that can be done to extend its useful life? Concrete flaking off the piers or potholes on the bridge deck are a normal fact of life.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 27, 2019, 01:49:32 PMPart of me wonders if that has anything to do with designating a business loop rather than making the freeway portion a new I-481 and the rest a state highway like was originally planned. I know FHWA hates partial interchanges these days - especially for interstate/interstate junctions.
https://www.syracuse.com/news/2019/04/i-81-690-were-supposed-to-finally-connect-on-syracuses-north-side-what-happened.html
So they took out the I-81/I-690 ramp connection to please a few regardless of safety. They contradict themselves
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 27, 2019, 01:49:32 PM
So they took out the I-81/I-690 ramp connection to please a few regardless of safety. They contradict themselves
Quote from: Duke87 on April 28, 2019, 03:30:54 PMQuote from: Mergingtraffic on April 27, 2019, 01:49:32 PMWell, and to cut costs. Given the current state of NYSDOT's finances, it won't take much local complaint to convince them to spend less money on something.
So they took out the I-81/I-690 ramp connection to please a few regardless of safety. They contradict themselves
This is also a contributing factor to the "community grid" alternative itself - the state has to tear down the existing viaduct regardless, and the proposed improvements to 481, while unrobust and leading to a reduction in overall capacity and network quality, cost less than building a new viaduct would.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 28, 2019, 03:30:54 PMCost of ramps is quoted $90M out of $2B project, less than 5%. Not negligible, but it may raise questions from FHWA, as mentioned. That is for the project which is mostly federal money.Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 27, 2019, 01:49:32 PM
So they took out the I-81/I-690 ramp connection to please a few regardless of safety. They contradict themselves
Well, and to cut costs. Given the current state of NYSDOT's finances, it won't take much local complaint to convince them to spend less money on something.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 28, 2019, 05:40:09 PMThere is no really good option here. At this point I feel the worse it grows, the better: there will be an example to show as a failure to counter urbanism approach.
This whole thing is going to be a mistake if actually put forth and constructed (or more like destruction).
The current "bypass" is going to see massive traffic issues as it's already overloaded, and traffic who already relies on the existing I-81 that's not long-distance is going to be forced to surface streets.
Keep it going NYSDOT!
Quote from: kalvado on April 28, 2019, 06:20:35 PMI don't see that happening. Any congestion will be touted as a "feature" rather than a bug, and if development or revitalization fails to happen, it will probably be explained away as Syracuse being on decline rather than any flaw in the urbanist approach.Quote from: sprjus4 on April 28, 2019, 05:40:09 PMThere is no really good option here. At this point I feel the worse it grows, the better: there will be an example to show as a failure to counter urbanism approach.
This whole thing is going to be a mistake if actually put forth and constructed (or more like destruction).
The current "bypass" is going to see massive traffic issues as it's already overloaded, and traffic who already relies on the existing I-81 that's not long-distance is going to be forced to surface streets.
Keep it going NYSDOT!
Quote from: kalvado on April 28, 2019, 06:20:35 PMOr worse... it'll be the first of many...
There is no really good option here. At this point I feel the worse it grows, the better: there will be an example to show as a failure to counter urbanism approach.
Quote from: vdeane on April 28, 2019, 08:06:47 PMIt would still be a pretty strong argument that city population, and probably are population, would go down. Of course, anything can be denied - including 2+2=4 - but there will be a good example of "and no, it didn't help"Quote from: kalvado on April 28, 2019, 06:20:35 PMI don't see that happening. Any congestion will be touted as a "feature" rather than a bug, and if development or revitalization fails to happen, it will probably be explained away as Syracuse being on decline rather than any flaw in the urbanist approach.Quote from: sprjus4 on April 28, 2019, 05:40:09 PMThere is no really good option here. At this point I feel the worse it grows, the better: there will be an example to show as a failure to counter urbanism approach.
This whole thing is going to be a mistake if actually put forth and constructed (or more like destruction).
The current "bypass" is going to see massive traffic issues as it's already overloaded, and traffic who already relies on the existing I-81 that's not long-distance is going to be forced to surface streets.
Keep it going NYSDOT!
Quote from: sparker on April 28, 2019, 08:50:16 PMCensus estimates: city of Syracuse NY: 146k(2010)->144k(2017), -2k; Syracuse MSA 662.5k(2010) ->651k(2017), -11.5k
^^^^^^^^
If indeed the Syracuse population continues to decrease, urbanists may be inclined to preside (or attempt to do so) over a city "transfiguration" into a format built around the university and geared toward the regional service sector, since manufacturing has essentially left the area. If so, there's a distinct possibililty that attention may be turned toward I-690 as the singular feature of the "old way of doing things" remaining in the city core; placing that facility on the chopping block (wholly or partially) might be on the agenda within a decade or two.
An ancillary question: Have the independent suburbs surrounding Syracuse (e.g. Fairmount, Liverpool, Bayberry et. al.) also featured correponding population losses -- or have they actually served as relocation destinations from the central city? That in itself would serve either as further incentive to continue down the selected path of urban revamping or, alternately, indicate that the regional population, rather than abandoning the region in a wholesale fashion, has simply rearranged itself around the periphery as with so many other urban areas.
Quote from: sparker on April 28, 2019, 08:50:16 PM
An ancillary question: Have the independent suburbs surrounding Syracuse (e.g. Fairmount, Liverpool, Bayberry et. al.) also featured correponding population losses -- or have they actually served as relocation destinations from the central city? That in itself would serve either as further incentive to continue down the selected path of urban revamping or, alternately, indicate that the regional population, rather than abandoning the region in a wholesale fashion, has simply rearranged itself around the periphery as with so many other urban areas.
Quote from: cl94 on April 28, 2019, 09:19:40 PMQuote from: sparker on April 28, 2019, 08:50:16 PMThe metro as a whole has had massive population losses. The city itself has been losing population for 60 years, but the largest losses by percentage are in the suburbs. Baby Boomers are retiring and moving south/dying out and younger people are not staying in the region to replace them. There are some projections that the region will lose 1/4 of its population within the next 20 years.
An ancillary question: Have the independent suburbs surrounding Syracuse (e.g. Fairmount, Liverpool, Bayberry et. al.) also featured correponding population losses -- or have they actually served as relocation destinations from the central city?
Quote from: webny99 on April 28, 2019, 09:46:18 PMTo make your life a bit easier:Quote from: cl94 on April 28, 2019, 09:19:40 PMQuote from: sparker on April 28, 2019, 08:50:16 PMThe metro as a whole has had massive population losses. The city itself has been losing population for 60 years, but the largest losses by percentage are in the suburbs. Baby Boomers are retiring and moving south/dying out and younger people are not staying in the region to replace them. There are some projections that the region will lose 1/4 of its population within the next 20 years.
An ancillary question: Have the independent suburbs surrounding Syracuse (e.g. Fairmount, Liverpool, Bayberry et. al.) also featured correponding population losses -- or have they actually served as relocation destinations from the central city?
Massive? I really have a tough time believing that the Syracuse region is losing population at any significant rate, much less the rate of Detroit in the 1970s. I know at least some of the suburbs are still growing, albeit slowly. I hope to get time tomorrow to compile some actual data for both the city and the metro area.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 29, 2019, 11:13:59 AMnot sure, but tunnel is specifically said to be difficult due to ground water being close to surface. Since most of upstate cities are in river valleys, and Syracuse being specifically on a lakeshore, I wouldn't be surprised if that complicates any construction below the ground level
If I-490 is all below-grade through Rochester, why wasn't I-81 designed in the same manner
Quote from: kalvado on April 29, 2019, 11:18:21 AMRochester's water table isn't too good either.Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 29, 2019, 11:13:59 AMnot sure, but tunnel is specifically said to be difficult due to ground water being close to surface. Since most of upstate cities are in river valleys, and Syracuse being specifically on a lakeshore, I wouldn't be surprised if that complicates any construction below the ground level
If I-490 is all below-grade through Rochester, why wasn't I-81 designed in the same manner
Quote from: seicer on April 29, 2019, 10:03:24 AM
Syracuse is like many rust belt cities (Cleveland, Rochester, Toledo, Detroit, etc.) and hasn't been immune to the rapid changes in the manufacturing sector.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 29, 2019, 11:13:59 AM
If I-490 is all below-grade through Rochester, why wasn't I-81 designed in the same manner
Quote from: webny99 on April 29, 2019, 11:47:38 AMQuote from: seicer on April 29, 2019, 10:03:24 AM
Syracuse is like many rust belt cities (Cleveland, Rochester, Toledo, Detroit, etc.) and hasn't been immune to the rapid changes in the manufacturing sector.
I don't believe Syracuse and Rochester are Rust Belt cities; neither had the manufacturing base of places such as Buffalo, Pittsburgh, or Cleveland. I started a thread for this discussion: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24907.0
Quote from: webny99 on April 29, 2019, 11:47:38 AMQuote from: seicer on April 29, 2019, 10:03:24 AM
Syracuse is like many rust belt cities (Cleveland, Rochester, Toledo, Detroit, etc.) and hasn't been immune to the rapid changes in the manufacturing sector.
I don't believe Syracuse and Rochester are Rust Belt cities; neither had the manufacturing base of places such as Buffalo, Pittsburgh, or Cleveland. I started a thread for this discussion: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24907.0
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 29, 2019, 11:27:00 AMLooking at topo maps, Rochester should be way better:Quote from: kalvado on April 29, 2019, 11:18:21 AMRochester's water table isn't too good either.Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 29, 2019, 11:13:59 AMnot sure, but tunnel is specifically said to be difficult due to ground water being close to surface. Since most of upstate cities are in river valleys, and Syracuse being specifically on a lakeshore, I wouldn't be surprised if that complicates any construction below the ground level
If I-490 is all below-grade through Rochester, why wasn't I-81 designed in the same manner
Quote from: kalvado on April 29, 2019, 12:38:56 PMQuote from: RobbieL2415 on April 29, 2019, 11:27:00 AMLooking at topo maps, Rochester should be way better:Quote from: kalvado on April 29, 2019, 11:18:21 AMRochester's water table isn't too good either.Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 29, 2019, 11:13:59 AMnot sure, but tunnel is specifically said to be difficult due to ground water being close to surface. Since most of upstate cities are in river valleys, and Syracuse being specifically on a lakeshore, I wouldn't be surprised if that complicates any construction below the ground level
If I-490 is all below-grade through Rochester, why wasn't I-81 designed in the same manner
http://nyfalls.com/maps/ny-maps-topo-100000/#Rochester
Quote from: Rothman on April 29, 2019, 12:41:28 PMLake surface in Rochester is marked 74.8 - I assume average number, since lake fluctuate; and 100 contour goes pretty much parallel to the lake shore. I am not really familiar with Rochester, but as a single point: 390/490 seems to be above 150 markQuote from: kalvado on April 29, 2019, 12:38:56 PMQuote from: RobbieL2415 on April 29, 2019, 11:27:00 AMLooking at topo maps, Rochester should be way better:Quote from: kalvado on April 29, 2019, 11:18:21 AMRochester's water table isn't too good either.Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 29, 2019, 11:13:59 AMnot sure, but tunnel is specifically said to be difficult due to ground water being close to surface. Since most of upstate cities are in river valleys, and Syracuse being specifically on a lakeshore, I wouldn't be surprised if that complicates any construction below the ground level
If I-490 is all below-grade through Rochester, why wasn't I-81 designed in the same manner
http://nyfalls.com/maps/ny-maps-topo-100000/#Rochester
How do you figure that?
Quote from: sparker on April 28, 2019, 08:50:16 PMI wouldn't be surprised. I've already read at least one article where someone mentioned wanting to do that. At least I-690 will be in much better shape. Still, the current redecking project might not save the Buffalo Skyway, so we can't count anything out.
^^^^^^^^
If indeed the Syracuse population continues to decrease, urbanists may be inclined to preside (or attempt to do so) over a city "transfiguration" into a format built around the university and geared toward the regional service sector, since manufacturing has essentially left the area. If so, there's a distinct possibililty that attention may be turned toward I-690 as the singular feature of the "old way of doing things" remaining in the city core; placing that facility on the chopping block (wholly or partially) might be on the agenda within a decade or two.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 28, 2019, 08:08:11 PM
Next, they'll want to demolish I-95 through Downtown Richmond, construct a community grid, and route I-95 on I-295 (ironically, that was the original plan when I-295 was built in the 80s). I-95 divides our neighborhoods, tear it down! (even though most of it isn't elevated)
Quote from: Rothman on April 29, 2019, 12:13:50 PM
Pfft. Your beliefs are quite unique. Rochester had Kodak go kaput and Syracuse has just had a slow bleed over the decades. Both economically hurting cities are in the Rust Belt with Buffalo.
Quote from: webny99 on April 29, 2019, 04:12:16 PM
For the most part, I know Rust Belt when I see it - such as on I-190 in Buffalo - and Rochester certainly isn't.
I wouldn't say Rochester is exactly hurting, either. It's a lot more white collar than Buffalo, was basically unaffected - relative to the rest of the US - by the 2008 recession, and the way the whole region adapted to the loss of Kodak was nothing short of amazing.
Syracuse has its fair share of issues, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it Rust Belt either.
Quote from: Beltway on April 29, 2019, 05:10:40 PMLike I said, his opinion is unique.Quote from: webny99 on April 29, 2019, 04:12:16 PM
For the most part, I know Rust Belt when I see it - such as on I-190 in Buffalo - and Rochester certainly isn't.
I wouldn't say Rochester is exactly hurting, either. It's a lot more white collar than Buffalo, was basically unaffected - relative to the rest of the US - by the 2008 recession, and the way the whole region adapted to the loss of Kodak was nothing short of amazing.
Syracuse has its fair share of issues, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it Rust Belt either.
Common definitions would put all those metro areas in the rust belt, in terms of percentage of job loss since the 1950s --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_Belt
Quote from: webny99 on April 29, 2019, 04:12:16 PMAlso basically unaffected by the 2000s housing boom. The economy is flatter than the rest of the country, which is great for stability, but in our growth-oriented society, the lack of the boom phases is viewed like kryptonite.
was basically unaffected - relative to the rest of the US - by the 2008 recession
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 29, 2019, 11:13:59 AM
If I-490 is all below-grade through Rochester, why wasn't I-81 designed in the same manner
Quote from: sparker on April 30, 2019, 12:50:40 AMCan we all agree that Utica is as rusty as the Rust Belt gets? :D
Even though Eastman/Kodak is in precipitous decline, Rochester, thanks to R.I.T., has a burgeoning electronics industry -- particularly in regards to analog circuits. Several high-end audio companies (Convergent Technologies, Power Modules/Belles, Marchand) have greater Rochester as their base of operations; Ashly, a maker of pro sound reinforcement equipment, is also located in the area (all of the companies' founders/designers came out of R.I.T., which is renowned for their analog engineering program). And several component manufacturers are located in the region as well; while it's not Silicon Valley or even Seattle by any means, it does have a high concentration of high-tech manufacturing and distribution. It's likely Rochester will hang on even though nearby metro areas (Syracuse, of course, Buffalo, Utica/Rome) find themselves constantly shedding employment opportunities and subsequently population.
Quote from: Rothman on April 30, 2019, 07:46:54 AMbig and heavy chart showing some trends among states:Quote from: sparker on April 30, 2019, 12:50:40 AMCan we all agree that Utica is as rusty as the Rust Belt gets? :D
Even though Eastman/Kodak is in precipitous decline, Rochester, thanks to R.I.T., has a burgeoning electronics industry -- particularly in regards to analog circuits. Several high-end audio companies (Convergent Technologies, Power Modules/Belles, Marchand) have greater Rochester as their base of operations; Ashly, a maker of pro sound reinforcement equipment, is also located in the area (all of the companies' founders/designers came out of R.I.T., which is renowned for their analog engineering program). And several component manufacturers are located in the region as well; while it's not Silicon Valley or even Seattle by any means, it does have a high concentration of high-tech manufacturing and distribution. It's likely Rochester will hang on even though nearby metro areas (Syracuse, of course, Buffalo, Utica/Rome) find themselves constantly shedding employment opportunities and subsequently population.
Although Rochester has some glimmers of hope, the fact of the matter is the upstate cities as a whole have pitiful growth, if any.
Quote from: Beltway on April 29, 2019, 05:10:40 PMAll about context: Losing half of 5,000 mfg jobs doesn't make a city part of the Rust Belt, while losing half of 200,000 mfg jobs probably does.
Common definitions would put all those metro areas in the rust belt, in terms of percentage of job loss since the 1950s --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_Belt
Quote from: Rothman on April 30, 2019, 07:46:54 AMCertainly, we can agree that it has all -- or at least most -- of the characteristics of a Rust Belt city, as does Binghamton. As far as location, however, it is east (and arguably north) of most definitions of the Rust Belt.
Can we all agree that Utica is as rusty as the Rust Belt gets? :D
Quote from: kalvado on April 30, 2019, 08:12:03 AM
big and heavy chart showing some trends among states:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/US_state_historical_population_FRED_SMIL.svg
population wise, last census estimate NYS is now in red - despite NYC attracting domestic and international migration. only a few upstate counties - notably Saratoga- show population growth, the rest of upstate is depopulating.
this is not about growth for the sake of growth, this is about people actively moving out.
Quote from: webny99 on April 30, 2019, 08:43:49 AM
It is actually rural areas that have been losing people at the fastest rate, while urban areas as a whole tend to remain stagnant or post small losses. If I recall correctly, about 10 of 50 or so Upstate counties are growing; Tompkins (Ithaca), and Ontario (Rochester suburbs, Canandaigua) being the most notable ones besides Saratoga.
Quote from: Beltway on April 30, 2019, 12:52:52 PMQuote from: webny99 on April 30, 2019, 08:43:49 AM
It is actually rural areas that have been losing people at the fastest rate, while urban areas as a whole tend to remain stagnant or post small losses. If I recall correctly, about 10 of 50 or so Upstate counties are growing; Tompkins (Ithaca), and Ontario (Rochester suburbs, Canandaigua) being the most notable ones besides Saratoga.
Buffalo city has lost 1/2 of its population since 1950.
Quote from: Beltway on April 30, 2019, 12:52:52 PMQuote from: webny99 on April 30, 2019, 08:43:49 AMBuffalo city has lost 1/2 of its population since 1950.
It is actually rural areas that have been losing people at the fastest rate, while urban areas as a whole tend to remain stagnant or post small losses.
Quote from: webny99 on April 30, 2019, 06:49:58 PMBuffalo MSA, according to census estimates, shows some variation with a slight downward trend, and a loss of about 0.5% of population in 2010-2018 period. That is on top of -3.5% in 2000-2010 period and -1.6% in 1990-2000 period.Quote from: Beltway on April 30, 2019, 12:52:52 PMQuote from: webny99 on April 30, 2019, 08:43:49 AMBuffalo city has lost 1/2 of its population since 1950.
It is actually rural areas that have been losing people at the fastest rate, while urban areas as a whole tend to remain stagnant or post small losses.
I should have been more clear that I was referring to recent trends (2000 - present), not long-term ones.
Looking at the entire metro area instead of just the city limits also puts it in the proper perspective. Erie County has more residents now than it did in 1950. It actually peaked in 1970 before declining, bottoming out around 2010, and rebounding slightly between 2010 and present.
So, yeah, all that basically just confirms what I already said :-D
Quote from: kalvado on April 30, 2019, 07:05:27 PMQuote from: webny99 on April 30, 2019, 06:49:58 PMBuffalo MSA, according to census estimates, shows some variation with a slight downward trend, and a loss of about 0.5% of population in 2010-2018 period. That is on top of -3.5% in 2000-2010 period and -1.6% in 1990-2000 period.Quote from: Beltway on April 30, 2019, 12:52:52 PMI should have been more clear that I was referring to recent trends (2000 - present), not long-term ones.Quote from: webny99 on April 30, 2019, 08:43:49 AMBuffalo city has lost 1/2 of its population since 1950.
It is actually rural areas that have been losing people at the fastest rate, while urban areas as a whole tend to remain stagnant or post small losses.
Looking at the entire metro area instead of just the city limits also puts it in the proper perspective. Erie County has more residents now than it did in 1950. It actually peaked in 1970 before declining, bottoming out around 2010, and rebounding slightly between 2010 and present.
So, yeah, all that basically just confirms what I already said :-D
Quote from: webny99 on May 01, 2019, 02:25:03 PMI second this. Niagara Falls has a serious blight and drug problems.Quote from: kalvado on April 30, 2019, 07:05:27 PMQuote from: webny99 on April 30, 2019, 06:49:58 PMBuffalo MSA, according to census estimates, shows some variation with a slight downward trend, and a loss of about 0.5% of population in 2010-2018 period. That is on top of -3.5% in 2000-2010 period and -1.6% in 1990-2000 period.Quote from: Beltway on April 30, 2019, 12:52:52 PMI should have been more clear that I was referring to recent trends (2000 - present), not long-term ones.Quote from: webny99 on April 30, 2019, 08:43:49 AMBuffalo city has lost 1/2 of its population since 1950.
It is actually rural areas that have been losing people at the fastest rate, while urban areas as a whole tend to remain stagnant or post small losses.
Looking at the entire metro area instead of just the city limits also puts it in the proper perspective. Erie County has more residents now than it did in 1950. It actually peaked in 1970 before declining, bottoming out around 2010, and rebounding slightly between 2010 and present.
So, yeah, all that basically just confirms what I already said :-D
FWIW, here is my source: http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/ny/erie-county-population/
The metro as a whole includes Niagara County, which probably skews the figures in a negative direction. The city of Niagara Falls is as bad off or even worse off than the city of Buffalo (IMO).
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 02, 2019, 12:08:37 AMQuote from: webny99 on May 01, 2019, 02:25:03 PMI second this. Niagara Falls has a serious blight and drug problems.Quote from: kalvado on April 30, 2019, 07:05:27 PMQuote from: webny99 on April 30, 2019, 06:49:58 PMBuffalo MSA, according to census estimates, shows some variation with a slight downward trend, and a loss of about 0.5% of population in 2010-2018 period. That is on top of -3.5% in 2000-2010 period and -1.6% in 1990-2000 period.Quote from: Beltway on April 30, 2019, 12:52:52 PMI should have been more clear that I was referring to recent trends (2000 - present), not long-term ones.Quote from: webny99 on April 30, 2019, 08:43:49 AMBuffalo city has lost 1/2 of its population since 1950.
It is actually rural areas that have been losing people at the fastest rate, while urban areas as a whole tend to remain stagnant or post small losses.
Looking at the entire metro area instead of just the city limits also puts it in the proper perspective. Erie County has more residents now than it did in 1950. It actually peaked in 1970 before declining, bottoming out around 2010, and rebounding slightly between 2010 and present.
So, yeah, all that basically just confirms what I already said :-D
FWIW, here is my source: http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/ny/erie-county-population/
The metro as a whole includes Niagara County, which probably skews the figures in a negative direction. The city of Niagara Falls is as bad off or even worse off than the city of Buffalo (IMO).
Quote from: kevinb1994 on May 02, 2019, 12:32:17 AMThere will be a whole new world of resurrection and community revival once Robert Moses parkway is gone! [ /sarcasm]Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 02, 2019, 12:08:37 AMQuote from: webny99 on May 01, 2019, 02:25:03 PMI second this. Niagara Falls has a serious blight and drug problems.Quote from: kalvado on April 30, 2019, 07:05:27 PMQuote from: webny99 on April 30, 2019, 06:49:58 PMBuffalo MSA, according to census estimates, shows some variation with a slight downward trend, and a loss of about 0.5% of population in 2010-2018 period. That is on top of -3.5% in 2000-2010 period and -1.6% in 1990-2000 period.Quote from: Beltway on April 30, 2019, 12:52:52 PMI should have been more clear that I was referring to recent trends (2000 - present), not long-term ones.Quote from: webny99 on April 30, 2019, 08:43:49 AMBuffalo city has lost 1/2 of its population since 1950.
It is actually rural areas that have been losing people at the fastest rate, while urban areas as a whole tend to remain stagnant or post small losses.
Looking at the entire metro area instead of just the city limits also puts it in the proper perspective. Erie County has more residents now than it did in 1950. It actually peaked in 1970 before declining, bottoming out around 2010, and rebounding slightly between 2010 and present.
So, yeah, all that basically just confirms what I already said :-D
FWIW, here is my source: http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/ny/erie-county-population/
The metro as a whole includes Niagara County, which probably skews the figures in a negative direction. The city of Niagara Falls is as bad off or even worse off than the city of Buffalo (IMO).
Not to mention a serious hospitality problem. I once stayed at the Howard Johnson (HoJo) for one night only with family and the place was run-down and had a bunch of flying insects in the elevator. Gross. Never again. Thankfully we ended up crossing the border into the Canadian side of Niagara Falls where we stayed at the Hilton Fallsview location and got moved into another room there for some reason that I do not recall (as I was young at the time).
Quote from: seicer on May 02, 2019, 07:16:10 AMNiagara Falls park will win big time if there is something resembling basic service. Reshaping park so that it serves 5000 locals better is a great idea, but don't cry out loud if it reduces revenue from millions of tourists while community looses jobs and people move out.
No, but it does remove a higher speed expressway (Moses never intended it to be a slow-speed parkway) that once ran through the -heart- of Niagara Falls State Park and through the heart of several other reservations. The parks, and all that they represent are much better off without Moses expressways.
Quote from: Jim on May 02, 2019, 07:57:02 AM
I know the better views of the falls are on the other side and that's where the tourists want to be, but there's enough on the NY side worth seeing and doing that the city/region/state should have been able to leverage that into at least making the city a decent place.
Quote from: webny99 on May 02, 2019, 08:37:58 AMYou realize that maid of the mist flies a maple leaf flag?Quote from: Jim on May 02, 2019, 07:57:02 AM
I know the better views of the falls are on the other side and that's where the tourists want to be, but there's enough on the NY side worth seeing and doing that the city/region/state should have been able to leverage that into at least making the city a decent place.
In some ways - views aside - the NY side is almost better than the Ontario side; the four highlights being Goat Island, Maid of the Mist, Cave of the Winds, and the Observation Tower. While the State Park is nice and has seen substantial investment, it isn't enough on its own to prevent the city at large from going the same direction as the rest of the Rust Belt in the last half of the 20th century. The city is also awkwardly positioned to benefit from the flow of tourists; the two best routes to Niagara Falls USA are the Rainbow Bridge and the former RMSP (now Niagara Scenic Parkway). Neither of those routes pass through the most depressed areas of the city, so neither the state nor local residents have any tourism-related incentive to improve said areas. (IMO)
Quote from: kalvado on May 02, 2019, 08:40:22 AMQuote from: webny99 on May 02, 2019, 08:37:58 AMYou realize that maid of the mist flies a maple leaf flag?Quote from: Jim on May 02, 2019, 07:57:02 AM
I know the better views of the falls are on the other side and that's where the tourists want to be, but there's enough on the NY side worth seeing and doing that the city/region/state should have been able to leverage that into at least making the city a decent place.
In some ways - views aside - the NY side is almost better than the Ontario side; the four highlights being Goat Island, Maid of the Mist, Cave of the Winds, and the Observation Tower. While the State Park is nice and has seen substantial investment, it isn't enough on its own to prevent the city at large from going the same direction as the rest of the Rust Belt in the last half of the 20th century. The city is also awkwardly positioned to benefit from the flow of tourists; the two best routes to Niagara Falls USA are the Rainbow Bridge and the former RMSP (now Niagara Scenic Parkway). Neither of those routes pass through the most depressed areas of the city, so neither the state nor local residents have any tourism-related incentive to improve said areas. (IMO)
Quote from: kalvado on May 02, 2019, 07:43:40 AMQuote from: seicer on May 02, 2019, 07:16:10 AMNiagara Falls park will win big time if there is something resembling basic service. Reshaping park so that it serves 5000 locals better is a great idea, but don't cry out loud if it reduces revenue from millions of tourists while community looses jobs and people move out.
No, but it does remove a higher speed expressway (Moses never intended it to be a slow-speed parkway) that once ran through the -heart- of Niagara Falls State Park and through the heart of several other reservations. The parks, and all that they represent are much better off without Moses expressways.
Quote from: kalvado on May 02, 2019, 08:40:22 AM
You realize that maid of the mist flies a maple leaf flag?
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2019, 08:49:12 AMI just was pointing out that out of 4 highlights which supposinly makeQuote from: kalvado on May 02, 2019, 08:40:22 AMQuote from: webny99 on May 02, 2019, 08:37:58 AMYou realize that maid of the mist flies a maple leaf flag?
In some ways - views aside - the NY side is almost better than the Ontario side; the four highlights being Goat Island, Maid of the Mist, Cave of the Winds, and the Observation Tower. [..]
Hm. Makes me wonder if they have more boardings from the American or Canadian side. Still, I don't see why their maple leaf flag matters in the context that was mentioned?
I'm probably missing a joke here somewhere. :D
QuoteAt least one is not only available on the other side, but is actually provided by the other side.
NY side is almost better than the Ontario side
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2019, 09:34:17 AMI just learned that Maid of the mist no longer runs from Ontario, only NY . Images I see are still with maple leaf flag, though.
Heh. I still wonder if more people board it from the American side.
Quote from: froggie on May 02, 2019, 01:49:54 PM
^ If they're flying a Canadian flag, means they're registered in Canada.
Quote from: froggie on May 02, 2019, 01:57:49 PMActually it is even more interesting as US to US port trip is a cabotage, and non-US flagged ships are explicitly banned from that. Ever wonder why a week long Caribbean cruise is cheaper than 3-day Mississippi one?
In the maritime world, where a boat/ship is flagged from and where it operates are often two very different locations.
Quote from: Jim on May 02, 2019, 07:57:02 AM
Sorry to continue this off-thread-topic diversion, but I have always been amazed that Niagara Falls has managed to be such a failure when it has the giant advantage of being home to a world-class tourist attraction. I know the better views of the falls are on the other side and that's where the tourists want to be, but there's enough on the NY side worth seeing and doing that the city/region/state should have been able to leverage that into at least making the city a decent place.
Quote from: Beltway on May 02, 2019, 09:28:14 PMAgreed. I remember visiting Niagara Falls in the early 2000s before a passport was required to cross the border. Simply proper ID and that was it.Quote from: Jim on May 02, 2019, 07:57:02 AM
Sorry to continue this off-thread-topic diversion, but I have always been amazed that Niagara Falls has managed to be such a failure when it has the giant advantage of being home to a world-class tourist attraction. I know the better views of the falls are on the other side and that's where the tourists want to be, but there's enough on the NY side worth seeing and doing that the city/region/state should have been able to leverage that into at least making the city a decent place.
True indeed. For someone like me who does not have a passport and who does not live in a border state, the American Falls is where I would go and only there. Can't go to Canada without a passport.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 02, 2019, 11:30:05 PMQuote from: Beltway on May 02, 2019, 09:28:14 PMAgreed. I remember visiting Niagara Falls in the early 2000s before a passport was required to cross the border. Simply proper ID and that was it.
For someone like me who does not have a passport and who does not live in a border state, the American Falls is where I would go and only there. Can't go to Canada without a passport.
Quote from: Beltway on May 02, 2019, 11:53:53 PMThe requirement for needing a passport came in 2009. In 2008, you needed either a passport or some proof of citizenship.Quote from: sprjus4 on May 02, 2019, 11:30:05 PMQuote from: Beltway on May 02, 2019, 09:28:14 PMAgreed. I remember visiting Niagara Falls in the early 2000s before a passport was required to cross the border. Simply proper ID and that was it.
For someone like me who does not have a passport and who does not live in a border state, the American Falls is where I would go and only there. Can't go to Canada without a passport.
My first trip to the Buffalo area was in 2008. Needed a passport at that point.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 03, 2019, 12:26:12 AMQuote from: Beltway on May 02, 2019, 11:53:53 PMThe requirement for needing a passport came in 2009. In 2008, you needed either a passport or some proof of citizenship.Quote from: sprjus4 on May 02, 2019, 11:30:05 PMMy first trip to the Buffalo area was in 2008. Needed a passport at that point.Quote from: Beltway on May 02, 2019, 09:28:14 PMAgreed. I remember visiting Niagara Falls in the early 2000s before a passport was required to cross the border. Simply proper ID and that was it.
For someone like me who does not have a passport and who does not live in a border state, the American Falls is where I would go and only there. Can't go to Canada without a passport.
Quote from: amroad17 on May 03, 2019, 02:25:32 AM
First time I went to Niagara Falls was in 1969 (at age 7) and again in 1971. My family visited both sides then. The next time was in 2017 along with my wife, who enjoyed her first ever visit to the Falls. We went to the American side only.
I did notice that both Buffalo and Niagara Falls seem a bit "run down" while driving back to Seneca Falls, where we were staying two years ago. The area around the Falls wasn't bad as it had that "tourist attraction" feel. However, the farther east we drove on NY 384, the "run down" was very noticeable. We took the LaSalle Expy east, driving by Love Canal, then continued on NY 384/NY 265. The further east/southeast we went, the appearance of the area did get better.
Anyway, let's turn our attention 160 miles east of Niagara Falls and opine as to what is going on with that viaduct. :D
Quote from: Jim on May 03, 2019, 07:56:41 AMThere is a Taughannock Falls not far from Syracuse, at 215 feet it is said to be the tallest waterfall east of Rockies.
Maybe Syracuse should convert part of I-81 into a waterfall to bring in the tourists.
Quote from: kalvado on May 03, 2019, 08:19:08 AMYeah right. :-DQuote from: Jim on May 03, 2019, 07:56:41 AMThere is a Taughannock Falls not far from Syracuse, at 215 feet it is said to be the tallest waterfall east of Rockies.
Maybe Syracuse should convert part of I-81 into a waterfall to bring in the tourists.
Maybe they can relocate that to downtown?
Quote from: kalvado on May 03, 2019, 08:19:08 AMThey would sooner make it an at-grade river.Quote from: Jim on May 03, 2019, 07:56:41 AMThere is a Taughannock Falls not far from Syracuse, at 215 feet it is said to be the tallest waterfall east of Rockies.
Maybe Syracuse should convert part of I-81 into a waterfall to bring in the tourists.
Maybe they can relocate that to downtown?
Quote from: Alps on May 03, 2019, 10:49:45 AMAnd will split the flow into community creeks. Once construction of Venice is complete, Syracuse will become tourist destination, eclipsing Niagara.Quote from: kalvado on May 03, 2019, 08:19:08 AMThey would sooner make it an at-grade river.Quote from: Jim on May 03, 2019, 07:56:41 AMThere is a Taughannock Falls not far from Syracuse, at 215 feet it is said to be the tallest waterfall east of Rockies.
Maybe Syracuse should convert part of I-81 into a waterfall to bring in the tourists.
Maybe they can relocate that to downtown?
Quote from: Alps on May 03, 2019, 10:49:45 AMThere could be a river through downtown Syracuse if they dug deep enough. The water table is not far below the streets there. Probably one reason the tunnel option wasn't viable.Quote from: kalvado on May 03, 2019, 08:19:08 AMThey would sooner make it an at-grade river.Quote from: Jim on May 03, 2019, 07:56:41 AMThere is a Taughannock Falls not far from Syracuse, at 215 feet it is said to be the tallest waterfall east of Rockies.
Maybe Syracuse should convert part of I-81 into a waterfall to bring in the tourists.
Maybe they can relocate that to downtown?
Quote from: Michael on May 04, 2019, 03:28:25 PMCan be about 787 in Albany as well:
This past week, The Simpsons' song about Upstate NY was all over the news. When I watched the video of it, I thought that the railing on the bridge that Homer was driving on looked an awful lot like the railing on the viaduct and other bridges in downtown Syracuse.
Compare this picture to the actual viaduct (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0465013,-76.1426197,3a,30.2y,266.19h,71.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s63WhgJrsf8a7abbJ9S5IGg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656):
(https://13wham.com/resources/media/1ed1e102-575a-4f7b-9326-0a29a2839e4a-medium16x9_Simpsons_bridge.jpg)
Quote from: Michael on May 04, 2019, 03:28:25 PM
This past week, The Simpsons' song about Upstate NY was all over the news. When I watched the video of it, I thought that the railing on the bridge that Homer was driving on looked an awful lot like the railing on the viaduct and other bridges in downtown Syracuse.
Compare this picture to the actual viaduct (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0465013,-76.1426197,3a,30.2y,266.19h,71.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s63WhgJrsf8a7abbJ9S5IGg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656):
(https://13wham.com/resources/media/1ed1e102-575a-4f7b-9326-0a29a2839e4a-medium16x9_Simpsons_bridge.jpg)
Quote from: DJStephens on May 13, 2019, 08:26:54 AMQuestion is when the work will start. There are many people negatively affected by the change, expect a lot of lawsuits and complains before anything moves. Looks like viaduct has no chance of rebuild, though.Quote from: Michael on May 04, 2019, 03:28:25 PM
This past week, The Simpsons' song about Upstate NY was all over the news. When I watched the video of it, I thought that the railing on the bridge that Homer was driving on looked an awful lot like the railing on the viaduct and other bridges in downtown Syracuse.
Compare this picture to the actual viaduct (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0465013,-76.1426197,3a,30.2y,266.19h,71.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s63WhgJrsf8a7abbJ9S5IGg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656):
(https://13wham.com/resources/media/1ed1e102-575a-4f7b-9326-0a29a2839e4a-medium16x9_Simpsons_bridge.jpg)
Very likely non of the reinforcing steel (rebar) in that original viaduct structure was epoxy coated. Perhaps in a later redeck, but originally, no. Seems crazy today, but that was the way it was - late fifties and through sixties, while there was a big push to get the roads built.
The original founders of the roads also did not foresee the vast increase in traffic, and heavy trucking, in many areas that would significantly shorten the lives of many bridges.
Did see something on the "streetsblog" site recently - dated April 26th - that a decision had been made to dismantle the viaduct and route through traffic around the city on the west bypass or 481. Any confirmation on that, or is it just wishful thinking by those in the streetsblog site?
Quote from: DJStephens on May 13, 2019, 08:26:54 AM
Very likely non of the reinforcing steel (rebar) in that original viaduct structure was epoxy coated. Perhaps in a later redeck, but originally, no. Seems crazy today, but that was the way it was - late fifties and through sixties, while there was a big push to get the roads built.
The original founders of the roads also did not foresee the vast increase in traffic, and heavy trucking, in many areas that would significantly shorten the lives of many bridges.
Quote from: Beltway on May 13, 2019, 01:30:02 PMIs anyone talking about "simply replacing"?
NYSDOT must be imbibing on a particular powerful brand of Kool-Aid, that is laced with pot.
"The DEIS, which estimates the grid would cost between $1.9 billion and $2.2 billion"
Spending that much money for ... what?
What is the cost estimate for simply replacing the 0.9 mile bridge ... maybe $300 million or so?
Quote from: kalvado on May 13, 2019, 01:36:39 PMQuote from: Beltway on May 13, 2019, 01:30:02 PMIs anyone talking about "simply replacing"?
What is the cost estimate for simply replacing the 0.9 mile bridge ... maybe $300 million or so?
Quote from: Beltway on May 13, 2019, 02:17:33 PMBut it is not. It's not an opinion, it is a medical fact. The closest analyzed option is "do nothing", and it is not a viable one.Quote from: kalvado on May 13, 2019, 01:36:39 PMQuote from: Beltway on May 13, 2019, 01:30:02 PMIs anyone talking about "simply replacing"?
What is the cost estimate for simply replacing the 0.9 mile bridge ... maybe $300 million or so?
It should be one of the alternatives evaluated in a comprehensive DEIS.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 13, 2019, 04:24:37 PMmentioned more than once upthread. There is a strong division between inner city, where elevated highway has little use and gets little love; and suburbs, where that highway is a part of daily commute. Part of the reason it takes so long that there is no way to keep everyone - or at least most people - happy.
What do the locals say about the preferred alternative? Are they happy with it? Or do they strongly oppose it?
Quote from: Beltway on May 13, 2019, 01:30:02 PM
NYSDOT must be imbibing on a particular powerful brand of Kool-Aid, that is laced with pot.
"The DEIS, which estimates the grid would cost between $1.9 billion and $2.2 billion"
Spending that much money for ... what?
What is the cost estimate for simply replacing the 0.9 mile bridge ... maybe $300 million or so?
Quote from: TonyTrafficLight on May 13, 2019, 05:38:03 PMQuote from: Beltway on May 13, 2019, 01:30:02 PMI think replacing the viaducts was around $1.4 billion. Not sure if this has been shared here
What is the cost estimate for simply replacing the 0.9 mile bridge ... maybe $300 million or so?
Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2019, 09:12:49 PM
We'll let the engineers that priced it out know your opinion on the matter. :D
Quote from: Beltway on May 13, 2019, 09:19:43 PMPrices have gone up significantly over the past 10 years. A lot of the estimates you've shared on the forums may be applicable 10 or 20 years ago, but things are different now.Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2019, 09:12:49 PM
We'll let the engineers that priced it out know your opinion on the matter. :D
I would like to see the detailed construction cost estimate.
Quote from: vdeane on May 13, 2019, 10:02:25 PM
As for a new viaduct, replace in kind isn't an option, because it doesn't meet modern interstate/NHS standards. That would also include significant work on I-690, including a revamp of the interchange between the two and a widening north of there.
Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2019, 10:19:34 PMI think what Belway's proposing is a project that would address only the viaduct, ie no improvements to the I-690 interchange or the freeway north of there.
Not sure your last post makes sense. They have to bring the facility up to standard or tear it down and build the grid. Not sure why it matters that tearing it down won't meet interstate standards.
Quote from: Beltway on May 13, 2019, 10:16:40 PMIt wouldn't need to meet interstate standards. I-81 would be re-routed on I-481.Quote from: vdeane on May 13, 2019, 10:02:25 PMIt certainly won't meet Interstate standards if they close the bridge.
As for a new viaduct, replace in kind isn't an option, because it doesn't meet modern interstate/NHS standards. That would also include significant work on I-690, including a revamp of the interchange between the two and a widening north of there.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 13, 2019, 11:15:07 PMI don't know why you continue to indulge our resident semi-troll.
@Beltway
Detailed cost estimate information - https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/repository/Appendix%20A-5_Alternative%20Cost%20Estimate%20Tables_04-19-2019.pdf
April 19, 2019
Viaduct is $2.2 billion. The actual 0.9 mile bridge replacement itself is only $539 million, but there's a lot more than just than. Take a look yourself.
Entire DEIS - https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/repository
Detailed engineering drawings of either the community grid or viaduct - https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/repository/872291C81E7D0134E0530A6C894A0134
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 13, 2019, 11:15:07 PM
@Beltway
Detailed cost estimate information - https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/repository/Appendix%20A-5_Alternative%20Cost%20Estimate%20Tables_04-19-2019.pdf
April 19, 2019
Viaduct is $2.2 billion. The actual 0.9 mile bridge replacement itself is only $539 million, but there's a lot more than just than. Take a look yourself.
Quote from: Beltway on May 13, 2019, 11:36:24 PMLook, you asked for detailed estimates, there's what I found.Quote from: sprjus4 on May 13, 2019, 11:15:07 PM
@Beltway
Detailed cost estimate information - https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/repository/Appendix%20A-5_Alternative%20Cost%20Estimate%20Tables_04-19-2019.pdf
April 19, 2019
Viaduct is $2.2 billion. The actual 0.9 mile bridge replacement itself is only $539 million, but there's a lot more than just than. Take a look yourself.
It says that Elevated Structures is $539 million, which is a lot more than just the 0.9-mile I-81 bridge which is the critical infrastructure that they are talking about removing.
What is the cost of replacing that bridge? Alt. 1 - same width. Alt. 2 - same number of lanes (6) will full right shoulders. Alt.3 - if they don't want to build a wider bridge then build it with 4 lanes and full right shoulders.
While Alt. 3 would have capacity issues a 4-lane Interstate highway would be immensely better than losing that segment altogether.
Alt. 3 would be very similar to the $240 million I-895 Canton Yards Viaduct replacement under construction in Baltimore which is also 0.9 miles and with 4 lanes and full right shoulders, plus in a northern unionized city where the construction costs should be fairly similar.
Quote from: Alps on May 14, 2019, 12:03:43 AMI don't think he's asking. He's just stating his opinion and insisting he's right, despite not having been directly involved with the project -- like the people who developed the estimates were.
Kozel: Fact is, things cost what they cost. Stop asking us.
Quote from: 1 on May 14, 2019, 08:04:44 AMFixing as-is is out of the question. Fixing to standards require a lot of extra footprint, eminent domain on city center property and quickly consumes a lot of money and goodwill.
I actually agree with Beltway. Since NYSDOT doesn't have enough money for all the improvements, fixing just the viaduct and nothing else works well, and it is even cheaper than the community grid plan that was accepted. I-81 will be able to stay where it is, and no capacity is lost compared to what it is now.
Quote from: kalvado on May 14, 2019, 08:14:36 AM^This.Quote from: 1 on May 14, 2019, 08:04:44 AMFixing as-is is out of the question. Fixing to standards require a lot of extra footprint, eminent domain on city center property and quickly consumes a lot of money and goodwill.
I actually agree with Beltway. Since NYSDOT doesn't have enough money for all the improvements, fixing just the viaduct and nothing else works well, and it is even cheaper than the community grid plan that was accepted. I-81 will be able to stay where it is, and no capacity is lost compared to what it is now.
Quote from: froggie on May 14, 2019, 08:10:30 AM
Based on his recent post, Scott seems to think that costs in Upstate New York are comparable to those in Maryland. That's simply not true. Labor costs are considerably higher in New York, and that's reflected in the project estimate.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 14, 2019, 12:57:12 PMWhich can be the case. But I still wonder how much non-labor items, such as machinery depreciation and raw materials - e.g. steel an concrete, actually contribute towards the grand total.Quote from: froggie on May 14, 2019, 08:10:30 AM
Based on his recent post, Scott seems to think that costs in Upstate New York are comparable to those in Maryland. That's simply not true. Labor costs are considerably higher in New York, and that's reflected in the project estimate.
And THIS is one of the places where I think transportation agencies can get a handle on costs. I know that when federal funds are involved, federal prevailing wage laws apply, but maybe, just maybe, one of these days we can get those repealed. Most of the contractors who build highway projects went into business strictly to get government contracts to build roads. It's basically all they do. It's their sole source of revenue. If the government says, "we're paying X amount of dollars for this project, and not a dime more," the contractors will either reduce their bids or they will go without work.
Quote from: Rothman on May 14, 2019, 04:19:12 PM
If I understand HB's intriguing proposal correctly, I am not sure that paying some pittance for labor is the best route when we want bridges built to spec. That said, I really am not that familiar with the prevailing wage legislation.
Quote from: Rothman on May 14, 2019, 07:55:39 AMQuote from: Alps on May 14, 2019, 12:03:43 AMI don't think he's asking. He's just stating his opinion and insisting he's right, despite not having been directly involved with the project -- like the people who developed the estimates were.
Kozel: Fact is, things cost what they cost. Stop asking us.
Quote from: froggie on May 14, 2019, 08:10:30 AM
Based on his recent post, Scott seems to think that costs in Upstate New York are comparable to those in Maryland. That's simply not true. Labor costs are considerably higher in New York, and that's reflected in the project estimate.
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 06:34:37 PMPeople who published the report were not engineers, of course. The people who came up with the engineering cost estimates on the other hand in the background were on the other hand.
Not really questioning any engineers, I realize that the people who actually published the report were most likely not engineers per se.
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 06:34:37 PMAgreed. I will say some interstates, like urban spur routes that don't have much use, or elevated freeways that get little traffic, I'm fine with removing. But long-distance thru routes like these, I'm completely against. Same with important urban spur routes.
I am aghast at this project, and the fact that the national "remove urban freeways" advocates will glom on to this and demand the removal of other urban freeways in the country.
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 06:34:37 PMThe situation with I-81 Syracuse was discussed quite a bit in 20 pages of this thread.Quote from: Rothman on May 14, 2019, 07:55:39 AMQuote from: Alps on May 14, 2019, 12:03:43 AMI don't think he's asking. He's just stating his opinion and insisting he's right, despite not having been directly involved with the project -- like the people who developed the estimates were.
Kozel: Fact is, things cost what they cost. Stop asking us.
I asked a couple questions, rendered some opinions, and put 3 alternatives out for perusal.
Not really questioning any engineers, I realize that the people who actually published the report were most likely not engineers per se.
I am aghast at this project, and the fact that the national "remove urban freeways" advocates will glom on to this and demand the removal of other urban freeways in the country.
So yeah this does affect me personally and many other people around the country.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 06:43:00 PMQuote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 06:34:37 PMPeople who published the report were not engineers, of course. The people who came up with the engineering cost estimates on the other hand in the background were on the other hand.
Not really questioning any engineers, I realize that the people who actually published the report were most likely not engineers per se.
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 06:51:24 PMAnd 9/11 was an inside job, right?Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 06:43:00 PMQuote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 06:34:37 PMPeople who published the report were not engineers, of course. The people who came up with the engineering cost estimates on the other hand in the background were on the other hand.
Not really questioning any engineers, I realize that the people who actually published the report were most likely not engineers per se.
The people who published the report were not necessarily using the work of engineers on their document ...
Quote from: kalvado on May 14, 2019, 07:00:12 PMQuote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 06:51:24 PMAnd 9/11 was an inside job, right?Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 06:43:00 PMThe people who published the report were not necessarily using the work of engineers on their document ...Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2019, 06:34:37 PMPeople who published the report were not engineers, of course. The people who came up with the engineering cost estimates on the other hand in the background were on the other hand.
Not really questioning any engineers, I realize that the people who actually published the report were most likely not engineers per se.
Quote from: Beltway on May 13, 2019, 11:36:24 PMIt doesn't have 6 lanes over the majority of it - it's 6 to exit 18, 4 within exit 18 (where the majority of the viaduct is), and then you're in the I-690 interchange. I-81 south even goes down to one lane just past the ramp from I-690 east.Quote from: sprjus4 on May 13, 2019, 11:15:07 PM
@Beltway
Detailed cost estimate information - https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/repository/Appendix%20A-5_Alternative%20Cost%20Estimate%20Tables_04-19-2019.pdf
April 19, 2019
Viaduct is $2.2 billion. The actual 0.9 mile bridge replacement itself is only $539 million, but there's a lot more than just than. Take a look yourself.
It says that Elevated Structures is $539 million, which is a lot more than just the 0.9-mile I-81 bridge which is the critical infrastructure that they are talking about removing.
What is the cost of replacing that bridge? Alt. 1 - same width. Alt. 2 - same number of lanes (6) will full right shoulders. Alt.3 - if they don't want to build a wider bridge then build it with 4 lanes and full right shoulders.
While Alt. 3 would have capacity issues a 4-lane Interstate highway would be immensely better than losing that segment altogether, and it would meet current urban Interstate highway standards.
Alt. 3 would be very similar to the $240 million I-895 Canton Yards Viaduct replacement under construction in Baltimore which is also 0.9 miles and with 4 lanes and full right shoulders, plus in a northern unionized city where the construction costs should be fairly similar.
Quote from: Alps on May 14, 2019, 09:18:00 PM
The 1.5x pay is fairly typical in most states with strong unions and not at all unreasonable.
Quote from: Rothman on May 14, 2019, 05:03:16 PM
Kentucky pays everyone on a 100% state-funded job minimum wage? No wonder the state is known for poverty.
Also makes me wonder about KY's split between federal and 100% funded state jobs and if their split is affected by that policy.
Quote from: Alps on May 14, 2019, 09:18:00 PM
"The Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) require payment of prevailing wages to laborers and mechanics employed on federal and federally-assisted construction projects." - That sounds good. I would want to see that.
Quote"The Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (CWHSSA) requires contractors and subcontractors on federal contracts to pay laborers and mechanics at least one and one-half times their basic rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. This Act also prohibits unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous working conditions in the construction industry on federal and federally financed and assisted projects." - That all sounds pretty good. The 1.5x pay is fairly typical in most states with strong unions and not at all unreasonable.
QuoteAll in all, Federal prevailing wage laws seem pretty damn reasonable and I see no reason to repeal them. They're protecting workers in anti-labor states with weak unions.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 15, 2019, 01:15:24 PMQuoteAll in all, Federal prevailing wage laws seem pretty damn reasonable and I see no reason to repeal them. They're protecting workers in anti-labor states with weak unions.
Except they drive up the cost to taxpayers.
Quote from: 1 on May 15, 2019, 01:24:17 PMWell, to put things in perspective:Quote from: hbelkins on May 15, 2019, 01:15:24 PMQuoteAll in all, Federal prevailing wage laws seem pretty damn reasonable and I see no reason to repeal them. They're protecting workers in anti-labor states with weak unions.
Except they drive up the cost to taxpayers.
Not by that much. For example, in an area where the minimum wage is the minimum $7.25 per hour, a whatchamacallit would cost $725. In Massachusetts (where it is $12 per hour), it would cost $900, in addition to living in a state with better healthcare and education.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 15, 2019, 01:15:24 PMQuote from: Rothman on May 14, 2019, 05:03:16 PM
Kentucky pays everyone on a 100% state-funded job minimum wage? No wonder the state is known for poverty.
Also makes me wonder about KY's split between federal and 100% funded state jobs and if their split is affected by that policy.
Kentucky does not pay them. The contractor pays them.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 15, 2019, 01:15:24 PMThese workers are taxpayers too, ya know. They too have living expenses and deserve to be paid well for the work that they do. Bottom line is that people want nice things, but no one wants to pay for them.
Except they drive up the cost to taxpayers.
Quote from: signalmanBottom line is that people want nice things, but no one wants to pay for them.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 15, 2019, 01:15:24 PM
But what, exactly, establishes a prevailing wage?
QuoteMy argument is that there are really only two places where project costs can be controlled, labor costs and corporate profits. Material costs are pretty much going to remain the same no matter which contractor gets the job. Even with labor costs set by law, it's sometimes amazing how much difference there can be in project bids.
Quote from: kalvado on May 15, 2019, 04:26:53 PM
Well, to put things in perspective:
Eventually, the two unions worked out a deal in which the dockbuilders, who earn $92.47 an hour in wages and benefits, would be assigned the work.
https://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/tappan-zee-bridge/2015/10/23/tappan-zee-builder-wins-again-union-wage-dispute/74454228/
Quote from: vdeane on May 14, 2019, 08:59:17 PMQuote from: Beltway on May 13, 2019, 11:36:24 PMIt doesn't have 6 lanes over the majority of it - it's 6 to exit 18, 4 within exit 18 (where the majority of the viaduct is), and then you're in the I-690 interchange. I-81 south even goes down to one lane just past the ramp from I-690 east.
Alt. 3 would be very similar to the $240 million I-895 Canton Viaduct replacement under construction in Baltimore which is also 0.9 miles and with 4 lanes and full right shoulders, plus in a northern unionized city where the construction costs should be fairly similar.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 16, 2019, 03:58:18 PMDon't think so. When - or if - NYSDOT starts the job, things will go reasonably. It is about getting the project going before viaduct collapses.
At the rate everything is going the solution will be "tear the Viaduct down and do nothing else. Route I-81 around Syracuse". The city will be stuck with a giant strip of land devoid of anything because no one is willing to compromise. That is what NIMBY'S deserve.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 16, 2019, 03:58:18 PM
At the rate everything is going the solution will be "tear the Viaduct down and do nothing else. Route I-81 around Syracuse". The city will be stuck with a giant strip of land devoid of anything because no one is willing to compromise. That is what NIMBY'S deserve.
Quote from: Beltway on May 16, 2019, 07:24:54 PMNYSDOT is cowering to the NIMBY and not seeing sense.Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 16, 2019, 03:58:18 PM
At the rate everything is going the solution will be "tear the Viaduct down and do nothing else. Route I-81 around Syracuse". The city will be stuck with a giant strip of land devoid of anything because no one is willing to compromise. That is what NIMBY'S deserve.
So $1.9 billion for the project that will tear a major chunk out of the freeway system, and $2.2 billion for the project that would provide the replacement of the freeway bridges and the improvement of the I-81/I-690 interchange area? So seppuku costs 14% less than the full modernization... it's cheaper to commit seppuku.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 16, 2019, 08:41:54 PM
NYSDOT is cowering to the NIMBY and not seeing sense.
Foolish of them.
Biggest waste of taxpayer money, or any money for that sense.
If a community grid was 90% cheaper, I could see it. But $1.9 billion is a lot of money for.... nothing. $2.2 billion would keep a high-capacity, high-speed urban freeway in place, replace it and make it safer, wider, and more reliable, and provide traffic improvements with a major interchange reconstruction.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 15, 2016, 11:05:07 PMQuote from: vdeane on June 14, 2016, 08:04:04 PM
Main Office will probably make the call. At the very least, Region 7 will also be affected, and I don't think the regions have the authority to change an existing road from sequential to mile-based numbers anyways. I think I heard from someone that, were it up to the Regions, Upstate NY (minus the Thruway) would have switched to mile-based exit numbers years if not decades ago.
What about Long Island? seems like down here is going to be the last part of the state to switch to mileage exits. We still dont have proper mile markers like the rest of the state.
Quote"The removal of the highway has the potential to essentially repeat the same outcomes that the construction of the highways had," Crowther said. The viaduct has acted as a border that prevented the more gradual flow of economic opportunity seeping outwards from the university, downtown, and hospitals in recent years. Once that barrier is removed, residents expect it to cause a shockwave of higher property taxes and rising rents, which current residents are unlikely to be able to afford.
Quote from: bemybear on August 21, 2019, 01:12:00 PMIs there enough ROW to do street replacement [which] is intelligently designed in the downtown?
vdeane....
I'm sure everybody has different levels of comfort and tolerance but I would honestly consider walking down Harrison under I-81 (the bridge made a lot of loud clunking noises and seemed very dark) as quite an off putting experience. Plus more than one of the times we were walking through there people were honking at each other over some conflict about lanes under the bridge. Given that the bridge itself isn't in great shape and some work seems inevitable, I think opting to eliminate it isn't crazy sounding at all. Hopefully the street replacement is intelligently designed. A few miles of well done surface road don't have to be a huge back step in terms of transportation for those vehicles that need or choose to use it. I think of even very homely US-11 from the I-81 split near Avoca to downtown Scranton. Not an amazingly fast road but hardly a traffic snarled disaster and that road is basically just whatever evolved over the years, not obviously planed or optimized in any way.
Quote from: seicer on September 12, 2019, 07:21:47 AMGlass can be half-full or half empty. You may dislike the mall, but it is a part of the regional economy, and as such has to be considered as integral part of the situation. Would the city be better off if the mall starts downsizing?
Shocker. Pyramid is just an unreputable company (https://www.syracuse.com/business/2019/04/destiny-usa-bonds-downgraded-could-be-headed-to-junk-status.html), asking for generous tax breaks and credits and causing several malls in Syracuse to die. And several of their former malls were left to languish and die.
The new I-81 route, no matter where it ends up, needs to be designed to serve the residents of Syracuse, not business interests. The decision (?) was made to route I-81 along the bypass which ultimately benefits central Syracuse residents and rights the wrongs of the past, but ultimately hurts Pyramid, which I have little sympathy for. Judging from comments on prior articles about Pyramid, I think a lot of locals agree.
Quote from: kalvado on September 12, 2019, 08:47:30 AM
Of course, Canada or Rochester traffic to the mall is not affected by reroute; but southern suburbs and Cornell (out of state money!) are. Well, Amazon is there to pick up the slack, after all.
Quote from: ixnay on September 12, 2019, 03:59:57 PMhttp://amazon.comQuote from: kalvado on September 12, 2019, 08:47:30 AM
Of course, Canada or Rochester traffic to the mall is not affected by reroute; but southern suburbs and Cornell (out of state money!) are. Well, Amazon is there to pick up the slack, after all.
Amazon has a major Syracuse presence? Where?
ixnay
Quote from: Henry on September 12, 2019, 10:06:15 AMWhen they tear I-81 down and see how crappy a community grid is, they'll call for the state to undo the $2 billion project and build a new viaduct!
I'm just hoping we don't get another Greensboro situation, where residents were complaining about I-40 when it was rerouted, and that ultimately forced it to return to its former route.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 12, 2019, 05:38:05 PMOr...tunnel... :DQuote from: Henry on September 12, 2019, 10:06:15 AMWhen they tear I-81 down and see how crappy a community grid is, they'll call for the state to undo the $2 billion project and build a new viaduct!
I'm just hoping we don't get another Greensboro situation, where residents were complaining about I-40 when it was rerouted, and that ultimately forced it to return to its former route.
Or better yet, in 15-20 years they'll begin an EIS for a new elevated freeway through Syracuse to relieve newly created traffic issues.
Quote from: kalvado on September 12, 2019, 04:59:31 PMQuote from: ixnay on September 12, 2019, 03:59:57 PMhttp://amazon.comQuote from: kalvado on September 12, 2019, 08:47:30 AM
Of course, Canada or Rochester traffic to the mall is not affected by reroute; but southern suburbs and Cornell (out of state money!) are. Well, Amazon is there to pick up the slack, after all.
Amazon has a major Syracuse presence? Where?
ixnay
Check it out, if you didn't yet - they sell anything you may ever need!
Quote from: ixnay on September 12, 2019, 07:23:33 PMAmazon distribution facility being built near Albany NY is said to be the first one in upstate.Quote from: kalvado on September 12, 2019, 04:59:31 PMQuote from: ixnay on September 12, 2019, 03:59:57 PMhttp://amazon.comQuote from: kalvado on September 12, 2019, 08:47:30 AM
Of course, Canada or Rochester traffic to the mall is not affected by reroute; but southern suburbs and Cornell (out of state money!) are. Well, Amazon is there to pick up the slack, after all.
Amazon has a major Syracuse presence? Where?
ixnay
Check it out, if you didn't yet - they sell anything you may ever need!
I've bought a couple of books from there a few years ago. That's about the extent of my dealings with Amazon. I prefer QVC. (I like Amazon's logo, though.)
My question was whether Syracuse had a Middletown, DE-like Amazon facility that most don't know about. I see where you're coming from, now, kalvado.
ixnay
Quote from: Henry on September 12, 2019, 10:06:15 AMThat works for north-south traffic going through Syracuse - I-481 is only 3 minutes longer (though IMO it's less interesting and the traffic is not fun). However, things are much worse for traffic traveling between the west and south (Binghamton/Cortland/PA to the State Fair, Syracuse western suburbs, northern Finger Lakes, much of Lake Ontario, Rochester via the fastest route, etc.) that currently takes I-81 and I-690 to the Thruway. Here's a comparison of trips from south of exit 16A to west of exit 39:
The upside to this is that what is now I-481 is already available for a potential I-81 reroute, and that there wouldn't be much difference in its overall length (11.18 miles in its current form, and 15.08 as proposed). I'm just hoping we don't get another Greensboro situation, where residents were complaining about I-40 when it was rerouted, and that ultimately forced it to return to its former route.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 12, 2019, 02:10:03 PMWhy would NY 481 change even if NY 81 didn't exist? It's not like I-81 north of there to Canada is being renumbered. The state route extensions of interstates are just that: extensions, not spurs. The only one that's technically a spur is NY 787... and the part of I-787 heading towards Troy was once planned to become part of I-88 and is only signed southbound.
If Interstate 481 becomes 81, I assume NY 481 would retain its existing designation since there is already a NY 81 between Rensselaerville and Coxsackie.
Quote from: vdeane on September 12, 2019, 09:07:09 PMIsn't NY 690 technically a spur off I-690?Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 12, 2019, 02:10:03 PMWhy would NY 481 change even if NY 81 didn't exist? It's not like I-81 north of there to Canada is being renumbered. The state route extensions of interstates are just that: extensions, not spurs. The only one that's technically a spur is NY 787... and the part of I-787 heading towards Troy was once planned to become part of I-88 and is only signed southbound.
If Interstate 481 becomes 81, I assume NY 481 would retain its existing designation since there is already a NY 81 between Rensselaerville and Coxsackie.
Quote from: ixnay on September 12, 2019, 07:23:33 PMQuote from: kalvado on September 12, 2019, 04:59:31 PMQuote from: ixnay on September 12, 2019, 03:59:57 PMhttp://amazon.comQuote from: kalvado on September 12, 2019, 08:47:30 AM
Of course, Canada or Rochester traffic to the mall is not affected by reroute; but southern suburbs and Cornell (out of state money!) are. Well, Amazon is there to pick up the slack, after all.
Amazon has a major Syracuse presence? Where?
ixnay
Check it out, if you didn't yet - they sell anything you may ever need!
I've bought a couple of books from there a few years ago. That's about the extent of my dealings with Amazon. I prefer QVC. (I like Amazon's logo, though.)
My question was whether Syracuse had a Middletown, DE-like Amazon facility that most don't know about. I see where you're coming from, now, kalvado.
ixnay
Quote from: Alps on September 13, 2019, 12:13:25 AMReally technically (same for NY 890), but there's even less signage (none) than for I-787 in both cases. You can't even see this in the Functional Class Viewer because all the other Thruway/interstate interchanges are classed as interstates too because of the ramps.Quote from: vdeane on September 12, 2019, 09:07:09 PMIsn't NY 690 technically a spur off I-690?Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 12, 2019, 02:10:03 PMWhy would NY 481 change even if NY 81 didn't exist? It's not like I-81 north of there to Canada is being renumbered. The state route extensions of interstates are just that: extensions, not spurs. The only one that's technically a spur is NY 787... and the part of I-787 heading towards Troy was once planned to become part of I-88 and is only signed southbound.
If Interstate 481 becomes 81, I assume NY 481 would retain its existing designation since there is already a NY 81 between Rensselaerville and Coxsackie.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 13, 2019, 07:11:41 PMIt's more of a joke in reference to how I-40 in Greensboro, North Carolina was routed onto the new freeway bypass but then routed back on the old alignment a few years later. At least in that case though, they never tore down the original freeway.
In response to the comment that the viaduct will go back up when the "community grid" proves to be insufficient, I think that is wishful thinking. Like anywhere else in the world, once a freeway is torn down, it is gone forever! Syracuse will be stuck with the community grid permanently.
Quote from: vdeane on September 12, 2019, 09:07:09 PMQuote from: Henry on September 12, 2019, 10:06:15 AMThat works for north-south traffic going through Syracuse - I-481 is only 3 minutes longer (though IMO it's less interesting and the traffic is not fun). However, things are much worse for traffic traveling between the west and south (Binghamton/Cortland/PA to the State Fair, Syracuse western suburbs, northern Finger Lakes, much of Lake Ontario, Rochester via the fastest route, etc.) that currently takes I-81 and I-690 to the Thruway. Here's a comparison of trips from south of exit 16A to west of exit 39:
The upside to this is that what is now I-481 is already available for a potential I-81 reroute, and that there wouldn't be much difference in its overall length (11.18 miles in its current form, and 15.08 as proposed). I'm just hoping we don't get another Greensboro situation, where residents were complaining about I-40 when it was rerouted, and that ultimately forced it to return to its former route.
Existing route (I-81/I-690/I-90): 14.3 miles/15 minutes
I-481/I-690/I-90: 22.5 miles/22 minutes
I-481/I-90: 24.6 miles/23 minutes
It's a much bigger difference. I'd have a much more favorable opinion of the community grid if the western bypass had been built (which I'd number I-681).
(personal opinion)
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 13, 2019, 10:11:43 PM
I hate it when freeways get torn down... Freeways relief traffic congestion!
Quote from: froggie on September 14, 2019, 12:01:59 PMI suppose you are playing devils advocate but saying freeways create congestion is a non-statement, IMO. I mean the obvious is out there and ones definition of success would likely be something that is popular or used a lot. A victim of its own success certainly applies here. So the urbanists would love to just give up so people are either forced to take transit or suffer nightmare congestion. Where freeways aren't widened traffic still increases and never have I seen a no build alt. factored in whenever an induced demand argument is made when people whine about freeways being jammed that were just widened.Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 13, 2019, 10:11:43 PM
I hate it when freeways get torn down... Freeways relief traffic congestion!
They also have a history of creating traffic congestion. Consider that dichotomy.
Quote from: froggie on September 14, 2019, 12:01:59 PMTraffic on I-481 would be significantly worse if I-81 was demolished.Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 13, 2019, 10:11:43 PM
I hate it when freeways get torn down... Freeways relief traffic congestion!
They also have a history of creating traffic congestion. Consider that dichotomy.
Quote from: froggie on September 14, 2019, 12:01:59 PMQuote from: mrhappy1261 on September 13, 2019, 10:11:43 PMThey also have a history of creating traffic congestion. Consider that dichotomy.
I hate it when freeways get torn down... Freeways relief traffic congestion!
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 14, 2019, 05:34:14 PM
Traffic on I-481 would be significantly worse if I-81 was demolished.
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2019, 12:08:47 PMQuote from: sprjus4 on September 14, 2019, 05:34:14 PMAnd the Thruway. And in downtown Syracuse.
Traffic on I-481 would be significantly worse if I-81 was demolished.
The overall movement of people and goods within and through Syracuse will get worse in pretty much every possible way.
I can't think of one single part of the Syracuse area where the residents won't see drastically increased travel times and longer commutes. Origin and destination are almost irrelevant; it will occur across the board.
Further, making almost every major destination (including Destiny, SU, the airport, and the State Fair) less accessible will add to this effect and stifle the already struggling economy.
Quote from: Beltway on September 16, 2019, 04:57:56 PMQuote from: webny99 on September 16, 2019, 12:08:47 PMQuote from: sprjus4 on September 14, 2019, 05:34:14 PMAnd the Thruway. And in downtown Syracuse.
Traffic on I-481 would be significantly worse if I-81 was demolished.
The overall movement of people and goods within and through Syracuse will get worse in pretty much every possible way.
I can't think of one single part of the Syracuse area where the residents won't see drastically increased travel times and longer commutes. Origin and destination are almost irrelevant; it will occur across the board.
Further, making almost every major destination (including Destiny, SU, the airport, and the State Fair) less accessible will add to this effect and stifle the already struggling economy.
$1.9 billon to dismantle it, and $2.2 billion to replace it and rebuild the interchange.
What a waste.
Quote from: webny99Making it easier to travel, releasing suppressed demand, and causing volumes to rise, isn't the same thing as creating "congestion".
Quote from: froggie on September 17, 2019, 09:20:06 AMQuote from: webny99Making it easier to travel, releasing suppressed demand, and causing volumes to rise, isn't the same thing as creating "congestion".
Look up induced demand. Despite some naysayers on this forum, it is a well-documented outcome. New roadway construction doesn't just shift traffic over from other facilities, it entices (induces) new trips to be taken...and this is where your congestion often comes into play. Perhaps not right away but it won't take long especially if there's already latent (i.e. unmet) demand in a given region.
There have also been cases where new freeway facilities got overwhelmed simply from the volume of traffic that was shifted over from other locations. You can argue semantics all you want about whether that's "congestion" but the bottom line is that the congestion wasn't reduced overall and you're simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.
And this is to say nothing about the environmental, societal, and financial costs of freeway construction in heavily built up or environmentally sensitive (thinking wetlands specifically here) areas. I'm not necessarily saying a given project shouldn't be done, but the costs of such need to be fully weighed against the benefits. Far too often, freeway promoters ignored the full costs of construction....this is in no small part what led rise to the freeway revolts of the '60s and '70s, because the highwaymen thought they could simply bulldoze over the opposition (pun intended).
Quote from: froggie on September 17, 2019, 09:20:06 AMWhat you're describing is suppressed demand. WHich does exists, of course, and which may show up after the new construction. Mobility - including the ability to change jobs on short notice - is an important factor of the modern social system. Suppressing demand may have its positive aspects, but doesn't really fit in a grand scheme of things.Quote from: webny99Making it easier to travel, releasing suppressed demand, and causing volumes to rise, isn't the same thing as creating "congestion".
Look up induced demand. Despite some naysayers on this forum, it is a well-documented outcome. New roadway construction doesn't just shift traffic over from other facilities, it entices (induces) new trips to be taken...and this is where your congestion often comes into play. Perhaps not right away but it won't take long especially if there's already latent (i.e. unmet) demand in a given region.
There have also been cases where new freeway facilities got overwhelmed simply from the volume of traffic that was shifted over from other locations. You can argue semantics all you want about whether that's "congestion" but the bottom line is that the congestion wasn't reduced overall and you're simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.
And this is to say nothing about the environmental, societal, and financial costs of freeway construction in heavily built up or environmentally sensitive (thinking wetlands specifically here) areas. I'm not necessarily saying a given project shouldn't be done, but the costs of such need to be fully weighed against the benefits. Far too often, freeway promoters ignored the full costs of construction....this is in no small part what led rise to the freeway revolts of the '60s and '70s, because the highwaymen thought they could simply bulldoze over the opposition (pun intended).
Quote from: froggie on September 17, 2019, 09:20:06 AMQuote from: webny99Making it easier to travel, releasing suppressed demand, and causing volumes to rise, isn't the same thing as creating "congestion".
Look up induced demand. Despite some naysayers on this forum, it is a well-documented outcome. New roadway construction doesn't just shift traffic over from other facilities, it entices (induces) new trips to be taken...and this is where your congestion often comes into play. Perhaps not right away but it won't take long especially if there's already latent (i.e. unmet) demand in a given region.
There have also been cases where new freeway facilities got overwhelmed simply from the volume of traffic that was shifted over from other locations. You can argue semantics all you want about whether that's "congestion" but the bottom line is that the congestion wasn't reduced overall and you're simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.
And this is to say nothing about the environmental, societal, and financial costs of freeway construction in heavily built up or environmentally sensitive (thinking wetlands specifically here) areas. I'm not necessarily saying a given project shouldn't be done, but the costs of such need to be fully weighed against the benefits. Far too often, freeway promoters ignored the full costs of construction....this is in no small part what led rise to the freeway revolts of the '60s and '70s, because the highwaymen thought they could simply bulldoze over the opposition (pun intended).
Quote from: 1 on September 17, 2019, 09:32:01 AM
Upstate New York isn't growing much.
Quote from: froggie on September 17, 2019, 09:20:06 AMTo be fair, the community grid concept that is proposed is $1.9 billion to construct, whereas replacing the viaduct with a new viaduct and reconstructing a major junction would be $2.2 billion - only a $300 million difference.
Far too often, freeway promoters ignored the full costs of construction....
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 07:20:24 PMThe community grid concept isn't just simple as dismantling the viaduct. Transitions would have to be built at either end to transition the freeway stub down to the surface streets, the surface streets would need upgrading, and each I-81/I-481 interchange would need a major upgrade to provide an I-81 thru movement.Quote from: froggie on September 17, 2019, 09:20:06 AMTo be fair, the community grid concept that is proposed is $1.9 billion to construct, whereas replacing the viaduct with a new viaduct and reconstructing a major junction would be $2.2 billion - only a $300 million difference.
Far too often, freeway promoters ignored the full costs of construction....
Quote from: webny99 on September 17, 2019, 09:01:52 PMIt happened on a bridge project on the Northway. The project was to replace the overpasses for Crescent and East High and to close/demolish the one for Nelson; after significant opposition, the plan to close/demolish Nelson was dropped and the project proceeded with just the replacements for Crescent and East High.
This discussion has me thinking. Has NYSDOT ever identified, and later changed, their preferred alternative after public blowback (or for any other reason)?
Obviously, this is one of the bigger projects being undertaken, so a shakeup of any sort would be noteworthy. I'm just reading through this thread and a few other sources and trying to assess the chance that they're forced to revisit the rebuild option. Maybe a 20% chance that the rebuild comes back to the table in a legitimate, meaningful way?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2019, 03:04:18 PMSo many other countries can do this in their cities and the US can''t.It's probably a reasonable assumption that those other countries you speak of don't have the permitting hoops that like-projects in the US have to go through. Such alone can add years if not decades to a project before ground is even broken. Not to mention that those other countries are probably much more forceful when it comes to eminent domain.
Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2019, 12:10:25 AMThe beauty is not only are they replacing the viaduct in Downtown, I-59 thru traffic also has I-459 as a bypass. Very comparable to I-295 around Richmond. Nice mostly 6-8 lane rural freeway that is pretty much a direct shot.
Here's how to do it --
New photos of I-59/20 Bridge Construction in Birmingham
https://www.al.com/news/g66l-2019/06/b9a7e8569c9394/new-photos-of-i5920-bridge-construction-in-birmingham.html
(https://www.al.com/resizer/V5Cv52W0kI8j5NI3UFND6DwZAZ8=/700x0/smart/advancelocal-adapter-image-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/expo.advance.net/img/6fb04d7504/width2048/230_i5920bridgeconstruction612190083.jpeg)
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2019, 03:04:18 PMGreat solution - but not in Syracuse soil, as far as I understand.
The ideal solution would be to get our infrastructure costs under control and build the tunnel with moderate access to downtown and the community grid. This gives the best of both worlds. So many other countries can do this in their cities and the US can't.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 22, 2019, 03:42:05 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2019, 03:04:18 PMSo many other countries can do this in their cities and the US can''t.It's probably a reasonable assumption that those other countries you speak of don't have the permitting hoops that like-projects in the US have to go through. Such alone can add years if not decades to a project before ground is even broken. Not to mention that those other countries are probably much more forceful when it comes to eminent domain.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 22, 2019, 03:42:05 PMRight and I understand what you and Froggie are saying. I am not suggesting we go to the extremes that China has regarding ED nor am I suggesting a complete disregard for the environment like we used to have in the early 20th century.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2019, 03:04:18 PMSo many other countries can do this in their cities and the US can''t.It's probably a reasonable assumption that those other countries you speak of don't have the permitting hoops that like-projects in the US have to go through. Such alone can add years if not decades to a project before ground is even broken. Not to mention that those other countries are probably much more forceful when it comes to eminent domain.
Quote from: kalvado on October 22, 2019, 04:07:53 PMThey did study this, no? I have heard something about the soil there before. It is unstable?Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2019, 03:04:18 PMGreat solution - but not in Syracuse soil, as far as I understand.
The ideal solution would be to get our infrastructure costs under control and build the tunnel with moderate access to downtown and the community grid. This gives the best of both worlds. So many other countries can do this in their cities and the US can't.
Quote from: cl94 on October 22, 2019, 05:39:39 PMIf my memory serves me right, water table is linked to the lake, and fairly close to the surface. I am fairly sure I had a link to the elevations map somewhere in this thread.
Eh, the soil in that area doesn't look horrible. Low water table, well-drained. It's not like the stuff north and east of Buffalo that is poorly-drained with a high water table. There's a reason most buildings at SUNY Buffalo have no basement and are built on piles.
Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2019, 08:42:34 PMBarely any cheap, only a couple hundred million out of an already multi-billion dollar project. Not to mention, the benefits are far greater on regional traffic flow with the viaduct replacement whereas the "cheaper" one will only choke the beltway further, and eventually call for a widening of its own which could easily ultimately exceed the cost of just replacing the viaduct.
The cheapest option was chosen. That's basically it.
Something tells me Syracuse's pull on Albany doesn't quite match Birmingham's pull on Montgomery. :D
Quote from: kalvado on October 22, 2019, 07:59:06 PMQuote from: cl94 on October 22, 2019, 05:39:39 PMIf my memory serves me right, water table is linked to the lake, and fairly close to the surface. I am fairly sure I had a link to the elevations map somewhere in this thread.
Eh, the soil in that area doesn't look horrible. Low water table, well-drained. It's not like the stuff north and east of Buffalo that is poorly-drained with a high water table. There's a reason most buildings at SUNY Buffalo have no basement and are built on piles.
Quote from: webny99 on October 22, 2019, 09:39:13 PMSee my earlier post. Syracuse has no pull. No pull means the State won't send more money than it wants to. Therefore, cost becomes the primary variable in the State's decision.
Wrong about what; the first bit?
I think it's obvious as to what would have happened in other states vs. what's happening here. I-59 is just one example. No doubt there will be many more examples in years to come.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 22, 2019, 09:16:08 PMThe "community grid" costs 91% of what the viaduct replacement project would cost.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2019, 08:42:34 PMBarely any cheap, only a couple hundred million out of an already multi-billion dollar project. Not to mention, the benefits are far greater on regional traffic flow with the viaduct replacement whereas the "cheaper" one will only choke the beltway further, and eventually call for a widening of its own which could easily ultimately exceed the cost of just replacing the viaduct.
The cheapest option was chosen. That's basically it.
Something tells me Syracuse's pull on Albany doesn't quite match Birmingham's pull on Montgomery. :D
Not to mention local traffic freeway movements are eliminated and will require surface street driving to navigate as opposed to existing freeway.
It's a RE/T project and they won this one it seems. New York's DOT is a joke for going along with it.
Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2019, 09:56:16 PMNo more than RE/T will. Can we stick with NIMBY and BANANA plz?
AHA/O may actually catch on.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 23, 2019, 02:33:47 AMAHA/O = Anti-Highway Activist/Obstructionist. Not sure about RE/T, though.
Pardon my ignorance but what is RE/T and AHA/O
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 23, 2019, 02:33:47 AMRadical environmentalist/transit groups.
Pardon my ignorance but what is RE/T
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 23, 2019, 02:33:47 AMGo up a few posts.
and AHA/O
Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2019, 09:51:41 PM
See my earlier post. Syracuse has no pull. No pull means the State won't send more money than it wants to. Therefore, cost becomes the primary variable in the State's decision.
Quote from: cl94 on October 22, 2019, 09:43:05 PMQuote from: kalvado on October 22, 2019, 07:59:06 PMQuote from: cl94 on October 22, 2019, 05:39:39 PMIf my memory serves me right, water table is linked to the lake, and fairly close to the surface. I am fairly sure I had a link to the elevations map somewhere in this thread.
Eh, the soil in that area doesn't look horrible. Low water table, well-drained. It's not like the stuff north and east of Buffalo that is poorly-drained with a high water table. There's a reason most buildings at SUNY Buffalo have no basement and are built on piles.
The soil map for that area (https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx) is maxed out for the water table ("more than 80 inches"). The lowest point of the viaduct is a good 25 feet above the lake surface elevation.
QuoteBoth the depressed roadway alternatives and the underground roadway alternatives generally will be constructed below the groundwater table. The groundwater is presumed to be saline.Stressed soil and flammable/toxic gas release from shale soil are two other issues for construction.
Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2019, 08:42:34 PMEh, I can see there being more to it. Cuomo has been pretty on board with freeway removal projects (see: the Scajaquada, Buffalo Skyway, and the Sheridan; I think the Inner Loop was a city project, but if not, add it to the list too). And like the Sheridan, the city strongly wants to remove I-81; the choice only becomes more controversial once the suburbs and thru traffic are taken into account.
The cheapest option was chosen. That's basically it.
Something tells me Syracuse's pull on Albany doesn't quite match Birmingham's pull on Montgomery. :D
Quote from: webny99 on October 23, 2019, 10:49:55 AMQuote from: Rothman on October 22, 2019, 09:51:41 PM
See my earlier post. Syracuse has no pull. No pull means the State won't send more money than it wants to. Therefore, cost becomes the primary variable in the State's decision.
Right, I get that. But is the state actually completely unwilling to send a penny more than necessary to Syracuse? Maybe, but I'm not convinced. Funds are being poured in to a number of other Upstate projects, but it's clear here that the state wants - and will make sure they get - the grid. So I keep coming back to the grid being very much pre-ordained as a pet project, and cost being a major talking point/crutch in favor of an otherwise hard-to-defend alternative.
Quote from: vdeane on October 23, 2019, 01:20:48 PMOn the other hand, 787 got a major rehab under current administration...Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2019, 08:42:34 PMEh, I can see there being more to it. Cuomo has been pretty on board with freeway removal projects (see: the Scajaquada, Buffalo Skyway, and the Sheridan; I think the Inner Loop was a city project, but if not, add it to the list too). And like the Sheridan, the city strongly wants to remove I-81; the choice only becomes more controversial once the suburbs and thru traffic are taken into account.
The cheapest option was chosen. That's basically it.
Something tells me Syracuse's pull on Albany doesn't quite match Birmingham's pull on Montgomery. :D
(personal opinion)
Quote from: kalvado on October 23, 2019, 01:23:55 PMThe Buffalo Skyway just had a major rehab too (I think it just finished, but may still be under construction). Doesn't mean that Cuomo isn't pushing removal in the relatively near term.
On the other hand, 787 got a major rehab under current administration...
Quote from: vdeane on October 23, 2019, 01:55:59 PMQuote from: kalvado on October 23, 2019, 01:23:55 PMThe Buffalo Skyway just had a major rehab too (I think it just finished, but may still be under construction). Doesn't mean that Cuomo isn't pushing removal in the relatively near term.
On the other hand, 787 got a major rehab under current administration...
Regarding I-787, I think the debate on removing it is more recent than many of the other corridors.
Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2019, 09:53:45 PMQuote from: sprjus4 on October 22, 2019, 09:16:08 PMThe "community grid" costs 91% of what the viaduct replacement project would cost.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2019, 08:42:34 PMBarely any cheap, only a couple hundred million out of an already multi-billion dollar project. Not to mention, the benefits are far greater on regional traffic flow with the viaduct replacement whereas the "cheaper" one will only choke the beltway further, and eventually call for a widening of its own which could easily ultimately exceed the cost of just replacing the viaduct.
The cheapest option was chosen. That's basically it.
Something tells me Syracuse's pull on Albany doesn't quite match Birmingham's pull on Montgomery. :D
Not to mention local traffic freeway movements are eliminated and will require surface street driving to navigate as opposed to existing freeway.
It's a RE/T project and they won this one it seems. New York's DOT is a joke for going along with it.
Results in a huge reduction in capacity and severing of vital access links as opposed to a moderate increase in capacity and safety.
The anti-highway activist/obstructionist (AHA/O) groups are undoubtedly pleased.
Quote from: webny99 on October 23, 2019, 10:49:55 AMQuote from: Rothman on October 22, 2019, 09:51:41 PM
See my earlier post. Syracuse has no pull. No pull means the State won't send more money than it wants to. Therefore, cost becomes the primary variable in the State's decision.
Right, I get that. But is the state actually completely unwilling to send a penny more than necessary to Syracuse? Maybe, but I'm not convinced. Funds are being poured in to a number of other Upstate projects, but it's clear here that the state wants - and will make sure they get - the grid. So I keep coming back to the grid being very much pre-ordained as a pet project, and cost being a major talking point/crutch in favor of an otherwise hard-to-defend alternative.
Quote from: vdeane on November 19, 2019, 12:50:42 PM
They're not really "old" numbers then, are they? In any case, I doubt the whole road would be renumbered if I-81 were to remain sequential since there are fewer interchanges on the new route than the old, and I think someone posted a report that it would go mile-based if rerouted anyways.
Quote from: machias on November 21, 2019, 07:56:32 PMQuote from: vdeane on November 19, 2019, 12:50:42 PM
They're not really "old" numbers then, are they? In any case, I doubt the whole road would be renumbered if I-81 were to remain sequential since there are fewer interchanges on the new route than the old, and I think someone posted a report that it would go mile-based if rerouted anyways.
Yes, according the conversations I had with R3 two years ago, since I-81 would be relocated, they would have to renumber all the interchanges in the new alignment and because of that change it's been decided that's when they'll go to milepost numbers for the entire route. R3 has already been coordinating with the other two regions. This would happen even if they went to the non-grid alternative, as the number of interchanges would still change.
Quote from: sparker on November 22, 2019, 01:23:05 AMNo. It will become BL I-81, per most recent presentations.
Since the existing freeway portion of present I-81 north of I-690 will remain intact, are there any rumblings regarding reassigning the I-481 number to that segment -- since it will undoubtedly remain on the FHWA logbooks as chargeable mileage? It would seem quite logical to do that as a continuation (albeit less direct) of NY 481.
Quote from: Rothman on November 22, 2019, 08:01:20 AMUnfortunately. As far as I'm concerned, business interstate aren't REAL interstates, and I'd prefer to see them go away - the last thing we need is to add another. Plus they're functionally deleting even the freeway portions of the current route from the interstate system with the current plan. I wonder if it has anything to do with the removal of the ramps connecting the north and west. FHWA doesn't like partial interchanges, but they might find it more palatable if it isn't the terminus of an interstate.Quote from: sparker on November 22, 2019, 01:23:05 AMNo. It will become BL I-81, per most recent presentations.
Since the existing freeway portion of present I-81 north of I-690 will remain intact, are there any rumblings regarding reassigning the I-481 number to that segment -- since it will undoubtedly remain on the FHWA logbooks as chargeable mileage? It would seem quite logical to do that as a continuation (albeit less direct) of NY 481.
Quote from: Michael on October 24, 2019, 09:41:09 PMSad. Very sad.Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2019, 09:53:45 PMI agree that one of the biggest reasons that the grid is being pushed is cost. It has always seemed silly to me since it isn't much cheaper than a replacement, but seeing the 91% really makes it stand out more to me!
The "community grid" costs 91% of what the viaduct replacement project would cost.
Results in a huge reduction in capacity and severing of vital access links as opposed to a moderate increase in capacity and safety.
Quote from: RothmanOne "pro" that NYSDOT puts forward is the fact that ROW takings are going to be far less with the grid than with replacing the viaduct. Another is that new ramps off of I-690 will be built that supposedly will help traffic get to Syracuse University (I am not so certain). I believe they'll be at Crouse and maybe University.
Time will tell.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 14, 2019, 10:46:55 PMAnd there is not a whole lot of traffic coming from the south. Cortland, Binghamton, Elmira are not really places with lots of free cash. Ithaca and Cornell can be a player, but still only that big.... Ottawa canbe bigger than all of those, but it is in the other directionQuote from: RothmanOne "pro" that NYSDOT puts forward is the fact that ROW takings are going to be far less with the grid than with replacing the viaduct. Another is that new ramps off of I-690 will be built that supposedly will help traffic get to Syracuse University (I am not so certain). I believe they'll be at Crouse and maybe University.
Time will tell.
I think they're going to be sorry once they demolish the segment of I-81 between I-481 & I-690. One factor is the giant Destiny USA mall just north of the complex I-81/I-690 junction. Destiny USA is currently the 4th largest shopping mall in the United States. It's a major draw of traffic across the region. Can we expect shoppers heading up I-81 toward Syracuse to take the loop around the East side and I-690 back West again? I think a whole lot of that traffic will just keep going North and create a whole lotta gridlock in the downtown area. It should be lots and lots of fun for all the college people who were expecting a "walkable" downtown experience. The end result might really really suck.
Quote from: bemybear on January 06, 2020, 11:30:43 AMThey were stubs that were replaced and/or supplemented by other nearby freeways.
Central Freeway in San Francisco CA
Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco CA
Harbor Freeway in Portland OR
Inner Loop in Rochester PA
Quote from: bemybear on January 06, 2020, 12:16:22 PMIt was a 1.0 mile stub, i.e. one end connected to surface streets.
Beltway:
I lived in SF when the Central Freeway was truncated and believe me, if you listened to the radio or TV news you were basically told that traffic Armageddon was coming. And from the AADT is seemed like a very 'vital' freeway. And Armageddon most certainly didn't come.
Quote from: bemybear on January 06, 2020, 12:16:22 PMNo, because there have been no examples of removing an urban freeway that was a complete route thru the area.
Do you have suggestions for situations when a multi-year planned transition of a road from limited access to boulevard was a mobility disaster? While not common, I'm sure there have been some substantial stretches of roadway that have either had a lane removed or gone from limited access to surface street etc.
Quote from: bemybear on January 06, 2020, 11:30:43 AMIf it's such a consistent pattern, how many mainline 2di long-distance interstates have been removed and not replaced?
So far, the history of sections of Urban freeways that have been removed has had a consistent pattern...
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 05:11:09 AMQuote from: bemybear on January 06, 2020, 11:30:43 AMIf it's such a consistent pattern, how many mainline 2di long-distance interstates have been removed and not replaced?
So far, the history of sections of Urban freeways that have been removed has had a consistent pattern...
All of your examples are spur, local highways.
QuoteAre there plans to reconfigure the (current) I-81/I-481/NY 481 interchange? Per Google Sat that's currently a cloverleaf. Rerouting I-81 IMO will require flyovers eventually.
Quote
I just did some Google directions from LaFayette (I-81 exit 15) to Weedsport (I-90 exit 40) to compare times. I-81/I-690/I-90 and I-81/I-90 are both 39 minutes, while I-81/I-481/I-90 and I-81/I-481/I-690/I-90 are 46 (the last one is also the only one to require more than one shaping point). Of course, in addition to time, there's also the principle of replacing what used to be 3 miles with 12 miles, and the fact that there will no longer be a good all-freeway route for trips from the western suburbs to/from points south or points south to/from the Fair or the northern Finger Lakes (I'm also the person who selects apartments based on how many trips in the metro area can be made with the freeway system (excluding the Thruway, which in my mind is mainly for long-distance travel, going to Canandaigua Lake, or Schenectady) as a backbone).
Quote from: vdeaneWhat I don't get is why everyone is ignoring the movements between the south and west that will be hosed by this proposal.
Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2020, 01:47:14 PMI'm not Region 3 and it's not like I've read every single word of the EIS. I skimmed through a few sections and the analysis appears to focus on the areas already widely reported (north-south through traffic and traffic to/from downtown), freight from the south to/from the airport, and consumers from the south to/from DestiNY USA. Naturally, the analysis did not include my "all freeway/no Thruway" preferences (a result of my combination of obsession with the chargeable interstate system and logical additions and Aspergian inflexibility; I'm only getting more set in my ways as I get older). I'm probably spoiled by living in the Capital District - ignoring Breezewood junctions and incomplete roads like I-86, aside from Vermont, I'm hard-pressed to think of anywhere in the US or Canada that would require me to go significantly out of my way to access via the interstate system (or equivalent) that isn't wholly disconnected from the system entirely (Providence is my best guess right now, but even that hinges on how "significantly out of my way" I-495 would be over MA/RI 146; the north shore of Lake Ontario (including Kingston) is also arguable, but one could also think of ON 137 as a giant Breezewood). Losing that is one thing I wouldn't like about moving back to Rochester, and this doesn't help.
It was part of the project/corridor studies. Surprised you didn't pick up on that before.
Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2020, 01:34:12 PMQuote from: vdeaneWhat I don't get is why everyone is ignoring the movements between the south and west that will be hosed by this proposal.Because the studies found even fewer folks making those movements than are making the through north-south movement.
Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 10:54:26 PMNah. The viaduct is coming down.
Lots of photos --
Latest photos from the I-59/20 bridge construction in Birmingham
https://www.al.com/news/j66j-2020/01/da241df2b77982/latest-photos-from-the-i5920-bridge-construction-in-birmingham.html?fbclid=IwAR1Ae5a0ax9nOrVQk8VI6z0EbY0NX6ZC55jY6Y0KJKJMOuDvAiFAEtBZNsg
. . . . . .
Syracuse needs to check this out!
Quote from: Rothman on January 08, 2020, 11:11:36 PMQuote from: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 10:54:26 PMNah. The viaduct is coming down.
Lots of photos --
Latest photos from the I-59/20 bridge construction in Birmingham
https://www.al.com/news/j66j-2020/01/da241df2b77982/latest-photos-from-the-i5920-bridge-construction-in-birmingham.html?fbclid=IwAR1Ae5a0ax9nOrVQk8VI6z0EbY0NX6ZC55jY6Y0KJKJMOuDvAiFAEtBZNsg
. . . . . .
Syracuse needs to check this out!
Quote from: Rothman on January 08, 2020, 11:11:36 PMIncredibly foolish and shortsighted.Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 10:54:26 PMNah. The viaduct is coming down.
Lots of photos --
Latest photos from the I-59/20 bridge construction in Birmingham
https://www.al.com/news/j66j-2020/01/da241df2b77982/latest-photos-from-the-i5920-bridge-construction-in-birmingham.html?fbclid=IwAR1Ae5a0ax9nOrVQk8VI6z0EbY0NX6ZC55jY6Y0KJKJMOuDvAiFAEtBZNsg
. . . . . .
Syracuse needs to check this out!
Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 10:54:26 PMGood to see that project coming nicely along. Syracuse will feel the pain of their decision after they already pulled the trigger, I-481 will become a bottleneck, and once you have to pour expense into expanding that road, you're now spending more money on this RE/T project than an actual network improvement.
Lots of photos --
Latest photos from the I-59/20 bridge construction in Birmingham
https://www.al.com/news/j66j-2020/01/da241df2b77982/latest-photos-from-the-i5920-bridge-construction-in-birmingham.html?fbclid=IwAR1Ae5a0ax9nOrVQk8VI6z0EbY0NX6ZC55jY6Y0KJKJMOuDvAiFAEtBZNsg
. . . . . .
Syracuse needs to check this out!
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 09, 2020, 05:40:01 AMImprovements to I-481 are included in the I-81 project.Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 10:54:26 PMGood to see that project coming nicely along. Syracuse will feel the pain of their decision after they already pulled the trigger, I-481 will become a bottleneck, and once you have to pour expense into expanding that road, you're now spending more money on this RE/T project than an actual network improvement.
Lots of photos --
Latest photos from the I-59/20 bridge construction in Birmingham
https://www.al.com/news/j66j-2020/01/da241df2b77982/latest-photos-from-the-i5920-bridge-construction-in-birmingham.html?fbclid=IwAR1Ae5a0ax9nOrVQk8VI6z0EbY0NX6ZC55jY6Y0KJKJMOuDvAiFAEtBZNsg
. . . . . .
Syracuse needs to check this out!
Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2020, 06:36:29 AMI-481 is being widened to 6-lanes?Quote from: sprjus4 on January 09, 2020, 05:40:01 AMImprovements to I-481 are included in the I-81 project.Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 10:54:26 PMGood to see that project coming nicely along. Syracuse will feel the pain of their decision after they already pulled the trigger, I-481 will become a bottleneck, and once you have to pour expense into expanding that road, you're now spending more money on this RE/T project than an actual network improvement.
Lots of photos --
Latest photos from the I-59/20 bridge construction in Birmingham
https://www.al.com/news/j66j-2020/01/da241df2b77982/latest-photos-from-the-i5920-bridge-construction-in-birmingham.html?fbclid=IwAR1Ae5a0ax9nOrVQk8VI6z0EbY0NX6ZC55jY6Y0KJKJMOuDvAiFAEtBZNsg
. . . . . .
Syracuse needs to check this out!
Concerns like vdeane's are more valid.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 09, 2020, 03:35:28 PMBoth directions between exits 4 and 5 and NB between exits 5 and 6.
I-481 is being widened to 6-lanes?
The Alabama Department of Transportation is preparing to open the new Interstate 59/20 bridges across the Magic City -- a $700 million project that is finishing early -- by Jan. 21. The project, funded by ALDOT, the Federal Highway Administration and the Birmingham Metropolitan Planning Organization, started in 2015. Traffic was diverted to Interstate 459 and surface roads all around one year ago. "We are very excited that we are getting to a point where we can put traffic back on 59/20 through downtown Birmingham," said ALDOT East Central Regional Engineer DeJarvis Leonard. |
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 16, 2020, 06:12:54 PMTunnel = expensive = tolls.
I still think they should build the tunnel. At this point if they don't even to consider rebuilding the viaduct it is hard to throw support behind a tunnel. It sucks it has to be this way. I have a small glimmer of hope they change course and rebuild the highway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 16, 2020, 07:35:06 PMRight. Just replace the viaduct with a modern viaduct.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 16, 2020, 06:12:54 PMTunnel = expensive = tolls.
I still think they should build the tunnel. At this point if they don't even to consider rebuilding the viaduct it is hard to throw support behind a tunnel. It sucks it has to be this way. I have a small glimmer of hope they change course and rebuild the highway.
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2020, 09:22:11 PMYes. Alabama did it right.Quote from: sprjus4 on January 16, 2020, 07:35:06 PMRight. Just replace the viaduct with a modern viaduct.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 16, 2020, 06:12:54 PMTunnel = expensive = tolls.
I still think they should build the tunnel. At this point if they don't even to consider rebuilding the viaduct it is hard to throw support behind a tunnel. It sucks it has to be this way. I have a small glimmer of hope they change course and rebuild the highway.
Quote from: Rothman on January 16, 2020, 09:54:12 PMDoes the viaduct rebuild option require taking new ROW?
I wonder if there were any ROW takings in the Alabama project.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 17, 2020, 01:27:35 AMYes, and demolition of a couple of buildings - some old and historic - as well.Quote from: Rothman on January 16, 2020, 09:54:12 PMDoes the viaduct rebuild option require taking new ROW?
I wonder if there were any ROW takings in the Alabama project.
Quote from: vdeane on January 17, 2020, 01:00:35 PMWhy, letting old structure rot out and collapse doesn't require anything. And we know that has a fat chance to actually happen... Is there any funding allocated for I-81 yet? May be interesting with latest budget news
Heck, even the community grid and tunnel options require ROW. There is literally no option here that doesn't.
Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 01:27:54 PMIf that actually happened there'd probably at least be a temporary easement involved to get the demolition done.Quote from: vdeane on January 17, 2020, 01:00:35 PMWhy, letting old structure rot out and collapse doesn't require anything. And we know that has a fat chance to actually happen... Is there any funding allocated for I-81 yet? May be interesting with latest budget news
Heck, even the community grid and tunnel options require ROW. There is literally no option here that doesn't.
Quote from: Rothman on January 17, 2020, 02:00:08 PMCost vs. benefit.
The ROW takings with the viaduct replacement were of a much greater number and cost than with the community grid. It was one of the factors in the decision to go with the grid, insofar as I am aware.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 03:48:58 PMNY state has a negative population growth rate, more so for upstate; and seems to be planning for future negative population growth as well.Quote from: Rothman on January 17, 2020, 02:00:08 PMCost vs. benefit.
The ROW takings with the viaduct replacement were of a much greater number and cost than with the community grid. It was one of the factors in the decision to go with the grid, insofar as I am aware.
(personal opinion emphasized)
The viaduct option may have greater impacts and cost, though will have far greater benefits in the long term than a community grid would. The Alabama project involved higher cost and impacts than rehabilitating the existing viaduct, though they chose that option due to the greater benefits in the long term.
Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 04:18:55 PM
NY state has a negative population growth rate, more so for upstate; and seems to be planning for future negative population growth as well.
Given project cost, abandoning city of Syracuse is likely a preferred option cost-wise.
Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 04:18:55 PMSo give up and all but ensure with a lack of infrastructure the state will continue to shrink? Going from a freeway to a boulevard is downgrade in every sense.Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 03:48:58 PMNY state has a negative population growth rate, more so for upstate; and seems to be planning for future negative population growth as well.Quote from: Rothman on January 17, 2020, 02:00:08 PMCost vs. benefit.
The ROW takings with the viaduct replacement were of a much greater number and cost than with the community grid. It was one of the factors in the decision to go with the grid, insofar as I am aware.
(personal opinion emphasized)
The viaduct option may have greater impacts and cost, though will have far greater benefits in the long term than a community grid would. The Alabama project involved higher cost and impacts than rehabilitating the existing viaduct, though they chose that option due to the greater benefits in the long term.
Given project cost, abandoning city of Syracuse is likely a preferred option cost-wise.
Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 04:18:55 PM$1.9 billion for a community grid. Seems like a lot of money poured into the city to appease locals and RE/T groups, and choke I-481 which will eventually require a 6-lane widening that could easily cost more than the $300 million difference. Not to mention that I-81 North to I-690 West movement will have to travel local roads or go even further out of the way.
Given project cost, abandoning city of Syracuse is likely a preferred option cost-wise.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 04:56:02 PMMr. Moses, this is 2020, not 1960. Demolishing city for better traffic - especially if there is no traffic to begin with - is hard to sell, for better or worse.Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 04:18:55 PM$1.9 billion for a community grid. Seems like a lot of money poured into the city to appease locals and RE/T groups, and choke I-481 which will eventually require a 6-lane widening that could easily cost more than the $300 million difference. Not to mention that I-81 North to I-690 West movement will have to travel local roads or go even further out of the way.
Given project cost, abandoning city of Syracuse is likely a preferred option cost-wise.
Compare that to $2.2 billion for a viaduct replacement which would have far greater benefits in the long-term for both local and long-distance traffic, something that type of money is better used for.
Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 05:12:51 PM:-D :-D
especially if there is no traffic to begin with
Quote from: Beltway on January 17, 2020, 04:44:51 PMWe can talk quite a bit about it; but probably uncontrolled spending and overtaxation is a bigger problem. Spending big time on fancy projects is going to make problem worse, not better.Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 04:18:55 PM
NY state has a negative population growth rate, more so for upstate; and seems to be planning for future negative population growth as well.
Given project cost, abandoning city of Syracuse is likely a preferred option cost-wise.
Repeated acts of urban hari-kari like with this I-81 matter, are the reason for the negative population growth rate, not the other way around; it is not like a negative population growth rate is causing the acts of hara-kiri.
Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 05:25:50 PMAfter it, it's just a local 1960 era freeway that is well underutilized and is merely a spur off of a major interstate highway and will not have much impact on traffic removing it.
I just don't think this highway really matters that much - shape of bandaid sticker doesn't matter, bullet went all the way through.
Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 05:12:51 PMYet nearly every city in the world is still investing in freeways. With your logic of freeway building being a relic of the 60s than trains are even worse being a relic of the 1800s.Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 04:56:02 PMMr. Moses, this is 2020, not 1960. Demolishing city for better traffic - especially if there is no traffic to begin with - is hard to sell, for better or worse.Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 04:18:55 PM$1.9 billion for a community grid. Seems like a lot of money poured into the city to appease locals and RE/T groups, and choke I-481 which will eventually require a 6-lane widening that could easily cost more than the $300 million difference. Not to mention that I-81 North to I-690 West movement will have to travel local roads or go even further out of the way.
Given project cost, abandoning city of Syracuse is likely a preferred option cost-wise.
Compare that to $2.2 billion for a viaduct replacement which would have far greater benefits in the long-term for both local and long-distance traffic, something that type of money is better used for.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 17, 2020, 05:58:11 PMNearly every city which can afford it. This is said reality in NYS: we can barely afford maintaining relics of 60s, major construction is beyond reach. And we have $6B budget gap projected for next year.Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 05:12:51 PMYet nearly every city in the world is still investing in freeways. With your logic of freeway building being a relic of the 60s than trains are even worse being a relic of the 1800s.Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 04:56:02 PMMr. Moses, this is 2020, not 1960. Demolishing city for better traffic - especially if there is no traffic to begin with - is hard to sell, for better or worse.Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 04:18:55 PM$1.9 billion for a community grid. Seems like a lot of money poured into the city to appease locals and RE/T groups, and choke I-481 which will eventually require a 6-lane widening that could easily cost more than the $300 million difference. Not to mention that I-81 North to I-690 West movement will have to travel local roads or go even further out of the way.
Given project cost, abandoning city of Syracuse is likely a preferred option cost-wise.
Compare that to $2.2 billion for a viaduct replacement which would have far greater benefits in the long-term for both local and long-distance traffic, something that type of money is better used for.
Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 06:17:08 PMYet NYSDOT has no problem spending $1.9 billion to appease RE/T groups and locals?
Nearly every city which can afford it.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 17, 2020, 06:31:18 PMDifferent states, different costs.
I am just bewildered that it will cost 3-4x more to build a smaller freeway than what Alabama built theirs, a wider one, for. The projects seem comparable even though Syracuse's looks a bit longer.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 06:37:56 PMIt seems to me there are ways to get these costs down. While I understand that there are going to be cost discrepancies among various states, differing factors like geography and population density, two projects like the ones in Birmingham and Syracuse shouldn't have such a cost disparity. A hundred or so million dollars even makes me scratch my head but is understandable but not a billion and this will be even more than that. The renderings of a rebuilt viaduct seem to imply the new road would be built substandard as in its current form.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 17, 2020, 06:31:18 PMDifferent states, different costs.
I am just bewildered that it will cost 3-4x more to build a smaller freeway than what Alabama built theirs, a wider one, for. The projects seem comparable even though Syracuse's looks a bit longer.
A local example, it costs Virginia $50 - $100 million per mile to construct a rural freeway, but right over the border in North Carolina it only costs $25 - $30 million per mile to construct that same rural freeway.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 17, 2020, 06:58:11 PMAlabama is red, NY is blue. Enough said.Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 06:37:56 PMIt seems to me there are ways to get these costs down. While I understand that there are going to be cost discrepancies among various states, differing factors like geography and population density, two projects like the ones in Birmingham and Syracuse shouldn't have such a cost disparity. A hundred or so million dollars even makes me scratch my head but is understandable but not a billion and this will be even more than that. The renderings of a rebuilt viaduct seem to imply the new road would be built substandard as in its current form.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 17, 2020, 06:31:18 PMDifferent states, different costs.
I am just bewildered that it will cost 3-4x more to build a smaller freeway than what Alabama built theirs, a wider one, for. The projects seem comparable even though Syracuse's looks a bit longer.
A local example, it costs Virginia $50 - $100 million per mile to construct a rural freeway, but right over the border in North Carolina it only costs $25 - $30 million per mile to construct that same rural freeway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 06:21:09 PMNo, I continue to believe dirt will not get moved within next 10 years. Or until old road collapses, and the president will commit to helping out.Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 06:17:08 PMYet NYSDOT has no problem spending $1.9 billion to appease RE/T groups and locals?
Nearly every city which can afford it.
You continue to act like the community grid option costs $50 million and the I-81 viaduct replacement costs $2.2 billion.
Both options cost around the same, and one provides greater benefits in the long-term for local, regional, and long-distance traffic. The other appeases locals and chokes regional and long-distance traffic, though because it costs 9% less and appeases locals, it's preferred. The current preferred option is an irresponsible spending of limited funding, and will only hurt Syracuse further routing traffic away from the city.
Alabama is doing it right.
Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 05:12:51 PMDemolishing city is likely at this rate. Already started in Rochester.Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 04:56:02 PMMr. Moses, this is 2020, not 1960. Demolishing city for better traffic - especially if there is no traffic to begin with - is hard to sell, for better or worse.Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 04:18:55 PM$1.9 billion for a community grid. Seems like a lot of money poured into the city to appease locals and RE/T groups, and choke I-481 which will eventually require a 6-lane widening that could easily cost more than the $300 million difference. Not to mention that I-81 North to I-690 West movement will have to travel local roads or go even further out of the way.
Given project cost, abandoning city of Syracuse is likely a preferred option cost-wise.
Compare that to $2.2 billion for a viaduct replacement which would have far greater benefits in the long-term for both local and long-distance traffic, something that type of money is better used for.
Quote from: Alps on January 18, 2020, 01:16:57 AMAnd what is the best option here from your perspective - suffocating city by removing traffic access or slump clearance to build a new highway?Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 05:12:51 PMDemolishing city is likely at this rate. Already started in Rochester.Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 04:56:02 PMMr. Moses, this is 2020, not 1960. Demolishing city for better traffic - especially if there is no traffic to begin with - is hard to sell, for better or worse.Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 04:18:55 PM$1.9 billion for a community grid. Seems like a lot of money poured into the city to appease locals and RE/T groups, and choke I-481 which will eventually require a 6-lane widening that could easily cost more than the $300 million difference. Not to mention that I-81 North to I-690 West movement will have to travel local roads or go even further out of the way.
Given project cost, abandoning city of Syracuse is likely a preferred option cost-wise.
Compare that to $2.2 billion for a viaduct replacement which would have far greater benefits in the long-term for both local and long-distance traffic, something that type of money is better used for.
Quote from: Alps on January 18, 2020, 01:16:57 AM
Demolishing city is likely at this rate. Already started in Rochester.
Quote from: webny99 on January 18, 2020, 08:34:14 PMExactly, and this is when RE/T groups try to compare demolishing I-81 to other local highway demolitions and say it doesn't hurt traffic. They fail to realize (or publicly admit) that I-81 is a long-distance interstate highway corridor with a heavy traffic load, and the other examples are localized freeways that don't get heavy usage.Quote from: Alps on January 18, 2020, 01:16:57 AM
Demolishing city is likely at this rate. Already started in Rochester.
Actually, I think downtown Rochester has very much improved since they filled that section of the loop.
The difference, obviously, is that there's no long distance traffic anywhere near our downtown. Even commuters didn't use the Inner Loop. Couldn't be more opposite to Syracuse in terms of the importance of the highway.
Quote from: webny99 on January 18, 2020, 08:34:14 PMQuote from: Alps on January 18, 2020, 01:16:57 AM
Demolishing city is likely at this rate. Already started in Rochester.
Actually, I think downtown Rochester has very much improved since they filled that section of the loop.
Quote from: ixnay on January 18, 2020, 09:24:35 PMQuote from: webny99 on January 18, 2020, 08:34:14 PMQuote from: Alps on January 18, 2020, 01:16:57 AM
Demolishing city is likely at this rate. Already started in Rochester.
Actually, I think downtown Rochester has very much improved since they filled that section of the loop.
More businesses coming downtown iow? Improved nightlife? A safer downtown? Better community coherence?
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 08:37:39 PMQuote from: webny99 on January 18, 2020, 08:34:14 PMExactly, and this is when RE/T groups try to compare demolishing I-81 to other local highway demolitions and say it doesn't hurt traffic. They fail to realize (or publicly admit) that I-81 is a long-distance interstate highway corridor with a heavy traffic load, and the other examples are localized freeways that don't get heavy usage.Quote from: Alps on January 18, 2020, 01:16:57 AM
Demolishing city is likely at this rate. Already started in Rochester.
Actually, I think downtown Rochester has very much improved since they filled that section of the loop.
The difference, obviously, is that there's no long distance traffic anywhere near our downtown. Even commuters didn't use the Inner Loop. Couldn't be more opposite to Syracuse in terms of the importance of the highway.
Quote from: bemybear on January 21, 2020, 10:51:02 AMI-481 is a beltway route that serves primarily local traffic. Pushing thru traffic on it will only overload it, and necessitate widening its 14 miles to 6-lanes, at least $300 million, if not much more. The movement from I-81 North to I-690 West will be eliminated and reduced to local boulevard, or far out of the way on I-481 and I-690.
Also, the 'corridor' will be intact. Normal non road geeks will blandly/blindly follow signage and be on the lovely modern and soon to be improved I-481. They aren't creating a section of gravel road between Scranton and I-90. They are shifting a bunch of trucks and disinterested through traffic to a newer piece of road and turning the old road which used to be the almost everybody road into hopefully a reasonably tolerable road that most non Syracuse people will never use and most people who do use it will on only be on for 2 or 3 miles. How this modest change becomes the downfall of an entire region is really a head scratcher.
Quote from: bemybear on January 21, 2020, 10:51:02 AMCommunity grid - $1.9 billion
2. The boulevard doesn't cost almost as much as rebuilding the viaduct. The boulevard PLUS substantial work to make I-481 capable of handling significantly more traffic.... Costs almost as much as the viaduct rebuild.
Quote from: webny99 on January 19, 2020, 12:36:12 PMQuote from: ixnay on January 18, 2020, 09:24:35 PMQuote from: webny99 on January 18, 2020, 08:34:14 PMQuote from: Alps on January 18, 2020, 01:16:57 AM
Demolishing city is likely at this rate. Already started in Rochester.
Actually, I think downtown Rochester has very much improved since they filled that section of the loop.
More businesses coming downtown iow? Improved nightlife? A safer downtown? Better community coherence?
Not sure about safety (that has never really been an issue in the CBD), but definitely all of the above other than that.
It's amazing how much less of a ghost town it feels like with that empty highway filled, and it really provides a lot more continuity between booming areas like Park Avenue/ South Wedge and the CBD. (And at least we have some new vacant buildings now instead of just old ones! :-D)
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 22, 2020, 06:14:39 PMLocal freeway vs. long-distance interstate.
How much traffic used the Robert Moses Parkway before it was torn down? How much traffic currently uses Interstate 81 in Syracuse? I suspect the traffic counts on Interstate 81 could make the case that the viaduct should not be removed.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2020, 07:44:19 PMLong distance traffic in the area of interest can fit on 2-lane road. area of interest is something like 80% commuting.Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 22, 2020, 06:14:39 PMLocal freeway vs. long-distance interstate.
How much traffic used the Robert Moses Parkway before it was torn down? How much traffic currently uses Interstate 81 in Syracuse? I suspect the traffic counts on Interstate 81 could make the case that the viaduct should not be removed.
A flawed comparison proponents of demolishing Interstate 81 use.
Quote from: kalvado on January 22, 2020, 08:56:01 PMReally? Crossroads of I-90 New York Thruway and I-81.Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2020, 07:44:19 PMLong distance traffic in the area of interest can fit on 2-lane road. area of interest is something like 80% commuting.
Local freeway vs. long-distance interstate.
A flawed comparison proponents of demolishing Interstate 81 use.
It may be hard to imagine that in VA, but Syracuse is at the dead end of things geographically, with long haul traffic (a) not very numerous and (b) avoiding ride through the city center.
Quote from: Beltway on January 22, 2020, 09:26:57 PMNot to mention, the major I-81 to I-90 connection via I-690 that would be eliminated.Quote from: kalvado on January 22, 2020, 08:56:01 PMReally? Crossroads of I-90 New York Thruway and I-81.Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2020, 07:44:19 PMLong distance traffic in the area of interest can fit on 2-lane road. area of interest is something like 80% commuting.
Local freeway vs. long-distance interstate.
A flawed comparison proponents of demolishing Interstate 81 use.
It may be hard to imagine that in VA, but Syracuse is at the dead end of things geographically, with long haul traffic (a) not very numerous and (b) avoiding ride through the city center.
I-81 is a major connector to Canada.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2020, 09:37:21 PMIf they want to keep calling themselves the "Empire State," then they need to do better than this.Quote from: Beltway on January 22, 2020, 09:26:57 PMNot to mention, the major I-81 to I-90 connection via I-690 that would be eliminated.
Crossroads of I-90 New York Thruway and I-81. I-81 is a major connector to Canada.
I-90 is a major east-west interstate highway, certainly not at the "dead end of things" .
Quote from: Beltway on January 22, 2020, 09:26:57 PMCan you guess traffic count towards Canada on I-81 without looking it up?Quote from: kalvado on January 22, 2020, 08:56:01 PMReally? Crossroads of I-90 New York Thruway and I-81.Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2020, 07:44:19 PMLong distance traffic in the area of interest can fit on 2-lane road. area of interest is something like 80% commuting.
Local freeway vs. long-distance interstate.
A flawed comparison proponents of demolishing Interstate 81 use.
It may be hard to imagine that in VA, but Syracuse is at the dead end of things geographically, with long haul traffic (a) not very numerous and (b) avoiding ride through the city center.
I-81 is a major connector to Canada.
Quote from: kalvado on January 23, 2020, 06:03:44 AMA low of 16,000 south of Watertown and over 22,000 in the Watertown area.Quote from: Beltway on January 22, 2020, 09:26:57 PMCan you guess traffic count towards Canada on I-81 without looking it up?
Crossroads of I-90 New York Thruway and I-81.
I-81 is a major connector to Canada.
Quote from: Beltway on January 23, 2020, 06:12:52 AMand less than 6000 at actual border crossing.Quote from: kalvado on January 23, 2020, 06:03:44 AMA low of 16,000 south of Watertown and over 22,000 in the Watertown area.Quote from: Beltway on January 22, 2020, 09:26:57 PMCan you guess traffic count towards Canada on I-81 without looking it up?
Crossroads of I-90 New York Thruway and I-81.
I-81 is a major connector to Canada.
Quote from: kalvado on January 22, 2020, 08:56:01 PM
Syracuse is at the dead end of things geographically
Quote from: ixnay on January 22, 2020, 11:23:02 AMQuote from: webny99 on January 19, 2020, 12:36:12 PMHas downtown Niagara Falls benefited similarly from the removal of the Robert Moses Parkway? Looking at Google Sat, it looks like downtown Houston with all the parking lots.Quote from: ixnay on January 18, 2020, 09:24:35 PMNot sure about safety (that has never really been an issue in the CBD), but definitely all of the above other than that.Quote from: webny99 on January 18, 2020, 08:34:14 PMMore businesses coming downtown iow? Improved nightlife? A safer downtown? Better community coherence?Quote from: Alps on January 18, 2020, 01:16:57 AMActually, I think downtown Rochester has very much improved since they filled that section of the loop.
Demolishing city is likely at this rate. Already started in Rochester.
It's amazing how much less of a ghost town it feels like with that empty highway filled, and it really provides a lot more continuity between booming areas like Park Avenue/ South Wedge and the CBD. (And at least we have some new vacant buildings now instead of just old ones! :-D)
Quote from: Beltway on January 23, 2020, 06:12:52 AMQuote from: kalvado on January 23, 2020, 06:03:44 AMA low of 16,000 south of Watertown and over 22,000 in the Watertown area.Quote from: Beltway on January 22, 2020, 09:26:57 PMCan you guess traffic count towards Canada on I-81 without looking it up?
Crossroads of I-90 New York Thruway and I-81.
I-81 is a major connector to Canada.
Quote from: froggie on January 24, 2020, 07:21:27 AMHow does the 'study' define "through traffic?"Quote from: Beltway on January 23, 2020, 06:12:52 AMI'll help Scott out here since I've read through the studies:Quote from: kalvado on January 23, 2020, 06:03:44 AMA low of 16,000 south of Watertown and over 22,000 in the Watertown area.
Can you guess traffic count towards Canada on I-81 without looking it up?
Approximately 6K AADT in I-81 through traffic through Syracuse. Given that the Syracuse viaduct in question has about 100K on its southern approach, that 6K is not a large number. And kalvado's right in that it would fit onto a 2-lane road.
Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 08:26:08 AMQuote from: froggie on January 24, 2020, 07:21:27 AMHow does the 'study' define "through traffic?"Quote from: Beltway on January 23, 2020, 06:12:52 AMI'll help Scott out here since I've read through the studies:Quote from: kalvado on January 23, 2020, 06:03:44 AMA low of 16,000 south of Watertown and over 22,000 in the Watertown area.
Can you guess traffic count towards Canada on I-81 without looking it up?
Approximately 6K AADT in I-81 through traffic through Syracuse. Given that the Syracuse viaduct in question has about 100K on its southern approach, that 6K is not a large number. And kalvado's right in that it would fit onto a 2-lane road.
For example, do they ignore traffic between Syracuse and the Watertown area? To the Fort Drum area? Between south of Syracuse and those places?
Quote from: kalvado on January 24, 2020, 08:52:07 AMThere should be engineering data in the report that would have the specifics.Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 08:26:08 AMentire Jefferson county is 116k in 2010, estimated decline to 111k today.Quote from: froggie on January 24, 2020, 07:21:27 AMHow does the 'study' define "through traffic?"Quote from: Beltway on January 23, 2020, 06:12:52 AMI'll help Scott out here since I've read through the studies:Quote from: kalvado on January 23, 2020, 06:03:44 AMA low of 16,000 south of Watertown and over 22,000 in the Watertown area.
Can you guess traffic count towards Canada on I-81 without looking it up?
Approximately 6K AADT in I-81 through traffic through Syracuse. Given that the Syracuse viaduct in question has about 100K on its southern approach, that 6K is not a large number. And kalvado's right in that it would fit onto a 2-lane road.
For example, do they ignore traffic between Syracuse and the Watertown area? To the Fort Drum area? Between south of Syracuse and those places?
How many of those people take long haul drive more than once a week?
How many of those who do drive go beyond airport or a big shopping mall? both drives are not affected by this project.
Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 08:26:08 AMQuote from: froggie on January 24, 2020, 07:21:27 AMHow does the 'study' define "through traffic?"Quote from: Beltway on January 23, 2020, 06:12:52 AMI'll help Scott out here since I've read through the studies:Quote from: kalvado on January 23, 2020, 06:03:44 AMA low of 16,000 south of Watertown and over 22,000 in the Watertown area.
Can you guess traffic count towards Canada on I-81 without looking it up?
Approximately 6K AADT in I-81 through traffic through Syracuse. Given that the Syracuse viaduct in question has about 100K on its southern approach, that 6K is not a large number. And kalvado's right in that it would fit onto a 2-lane road.
For example, do they ignore traffic between Syracuse and the Watertown area? To the Fort Drum area? Between south of Syracuse and those places?
Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 09:49:11 AMWell, lets look at a bigger picture.
There should be engineering data in the report that would have the specifics.
Quote from: vdeane on January 24, 2020, 12:38:20 PM
It's traffic from Cortland/Binghamton/PA/Ithaca and Cornell looking to go to the SYR airport/western suburbs/mall/State Fair/points west that feels the big impact - which is why it keeps coming up again and again.
Quote from: kalvado on January 24, 2020, 01:48:20 PMI did not use those words or say that.Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 09:49:11 AMWell, lets look at a bigger picture.
There should be engineering data in the report that would have the specifics.
You are trying to close the case "this stretch is essential for long haul through traffic"
Quote from: kalvado on January 24, 2020, 01:48:20 PM
THere are several people familiar with the area who tell you that this is a very weak case, there is only that much through traffic as there is not much there up north, nor there a lot to the south until you drive at least 150 miles to Wilkes-Barre, or 200+ ty NYC-Philli.
Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 03:11:34 PMhttp://thei81challenge.org/cm/ResourceFiles/resources/SMTC%20Model%20Version%203.023%20Documentation.pdfQuote from: kalvado on January 24, 2020, 01:48:20 PMI did not use those words or say that.Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 09:49:11 AMWell, lets look at a bigger picture.
There should be engineering data in the report that would have the specifics.
You are trying to close the case "this stretch is essential for long haul through traffic"
I said that it depends on how "through traffic" is defined.Quote from: kalvado on January 24, 2020, 01:48:20 PM
THere are several people familiar with the area who tell you that this is a very weak case, there is only that much through traffic as there is not much there up north, nor there a lot to the south until you drive at least 150 miles to Wilkes-Barre, or 200+ ty NYC-Philli.
Data. Need engineering data.
Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 03:11:34 PM
I said that it depends on how "through traffic" is defined.
Quote from: froggie on January 24, 2020, 11:13:34 AM
The cordons were the two I-81/481 interchanges and the I-690 interchange on the Thruway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 24, 2020, 05:00:37 PMQuote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 03:11:34 PM
I said that it depends on how "through traffic" is defined.Quote from: froggie on January 24, 2020, 11:13:34 AM
The cordons were the two I-81/481 interchanges and the I-690 interchange on the Thruway.
Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 06:52:26 PMYou ask for study results and details, then when they contradict what you think it should be, you claim they're false. But if they are what you think they should be, you back it and cite it when necessary.Quote from: sprjus4 on January 24, 2020, 05:00:37 PMQuote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 03:11:34 PM
I said that it depends on how "through traffic" is defined.Quote from: froggie on January 24, 2020, 11:13:34 AM
The cordons were the two I-81/481 interchanges and the I-690 interchange on the Thruway.
It is very hard to believe that 6,000 AADT is all the I-81 traffic that passes both of those I-81/I-481 points.
Quote from: webny99 on January 24, 2020, 07:15:30 PMCould also be decent amount during peak vs. very little to none off peak. Remember it is averaged.
It's even harder to believe that there's only 2000 VPD transitioning between I-81 NB and the Thruway WB and vice versa. Maybe on a winter weekday when there's a big snowstorm (just to name a situation when few people would want to be traveling); but in the summer? I don't think so. I look at the volume of Ontario and PA license plates on either route and I'm highly skeptical.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 24, 2020, 07:14:21 PMOK, where in the report does it specifically say that?Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 06:52:26 PMYou ask for study results and details, then when they contradict what you think it should be, you claim they're false. But if they are what you think they should be, you back it and cite it when necessary.Quote from: sprjus4 on January 24, 2020, 05:00:37 PMIt is very hard to believe that 6,000 AADT is all the I-81 traffic that passes both of those I-81/I-481 points.Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 03:11:34 PM
I said that it depends on how "through traffic" is defined.Quote from: froggie on January 24, 2020, 11:13:34 AM
The cordons were the two I-81/481 interchanges and the I-690 interchange on the Thruway.
Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 07:26:13 PMNot disagreeing with you, but you did ask for study results and were given such.Quote from: sprjus4 on January 24, 2020, 07:14:21 PMOK, where in the report does it specifically say that?Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 06:52:26 PMYou ask for study results and details, then when they contradict what you think it should be, you claim they're false. But if they are what you think they should be, you back it and cite it when necessary.Quote from: sprjus4 on January 24, 2020, 05:00:37 PMIt is very hard to believe that 6,000 AADT is all the I-81 traffic that passes both of those I-81/I-481 points.Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 03:11:34 PM
I said that it depends on how "through traffic" is defined.Quote from: froggie on January 24, 2020, 11:13:34 AM
The cordons were the two I-81/481 interchanges and the I-690 interchange on the Thruway.
Of the face of it that seems very unlikely, on a small beltway such as that in that metro.
Just asserting some "fact" exists doesn't make it proven.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 24, 2020, 07:27:03 PMCan't just claim "the report says xxxx" without showing where it says that.Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 07:26:13 PMNot disagreeing with you, but you did ask for study results and were given such.Quote from: sprjus4 on January 24, 2020, 07:14:21 PMOK, where in the report does it specifically say that?Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 06:52:26 PMYou ask for study results and details, then when they contradict what you think it should be, you claim they're false. But if they are what you think they should be, you back it and cite it when necessary.Quote from: sprjus4 on January 24, 2020, 05:00:37 PMIt is very hard to believe that 6,000 AADT is all the I-81 traffic that passes both of those I-81/I-481 points.Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 03:11:34 PM
I said that it depends on how "through traffic" is defined.Quote from: froggie on January 24, 2020, 11:13:34 AM
The cordons were the two I-81/481 interchanges and the I-690 interchange on the Thruway.
Of the face of it that seems very unlikely, on a small beltway such as that in that metro.
Just asserting some "fact" exists doesn't make it proven.
Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 07:29:29 PMPlease see figure 23 on page 64 (p. 65 pdf) : http://thei81challenge.org/cm/ResourceFiles/resources/SMTC%20Model%20Version%203.023%20Documentation.pdfQuote from: sprjus4 on January 24, 2020, 07:27:03 PMCan't just claim "the report says xxxx" without showing where it says that.Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 07:26:13 PMNot disagreeing with you, but you did ask for study results and were given such.Quote from: sprjus4 on January 24, 2020, 07:14:21 PMOK, where in the report does it specifically say that?Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 06:52:26 PMYou ask for study results and details, then when they contradict what you think it should be, you claim they're false. But if they are what you think they should be, you back it and cite it when necessary.Quote from: sprjus4 on January 24, 2020, 05:00:37 PMIt is very hard to believe that 6,000 AADT is all the I-81 traffic that passes both of those I-81/I-481 points.Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 03:11:34 PM
I said that it depends on how "through traffic" is defined.Quote from: froggie on January 24, 2020, 11:13:34 AM
The cordons were the two I-81/481 interchanges and the I-690 interchange on the Thruway.
Of the face of it that seems very unlikely, on a small beltway such as that in that metro.
Just asserting some "fact" exists doesn't make it proven.
Some posters have a habit of doing that.
Quote from: kalvado on January 24, 2020, 07:48:04 PMAccording to that, closer to 2,000?
Please see figure 23 on page 64 (p. 65 pdf) : http://thei81challenge.org/cm/ResourceFiles/resources/SMTC%20Model%20Version%203.023%20Documentation.pdf
Is that a good enough reference for you?
Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 08:15:19 PMPlease stop questioning facts. You have a habit of doing that.Quote from: kalvado on January 24, 2020, 07:48:04 PMAccording to that, closer to 2,000?
Please see figure 23 on page 64 (p. 65 pdf) : http://thei81challenge.org/cm/ResourceFiles/resources/SMTC%20Model%20Version%203.023%20Documentation.pdf
Is that a good enough reference for you?
Quote from: Alps on January 24, 2020, 08:48:03 PMI'm still trying to determine the FActs and the data.Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 08:15:19 PMPlease stop questioning facts. You have a habit of doing that.Quote from: kalvado on January 24, 2020, 07:48:04 PMAccording to that, closer to 2,000?
Please see figure 23 on page 64 (p. 65 pdf) : http://thei81challenge.org/cm/ResourceFiles/resources/SMTC%20Model%20Version%203.023%20Documentation.pdf
Is that a good enough reference for you?
Quote from: Beltway on January 25, 2020, 12:06:52 AMYou want a number higher than 6000. You're not getting it. Too bad.Quote from: Alps on January 24, 2020, 08:48:03 PMI'm still trying to determine the FActs and the data.Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 08:15:19 PMPlease stop questioning facts. You have a habit of doing that.Quote from: kalvado on January 24, 2020, 07:48:04 PMAccording to that, closer to 2,000?
Please see figure 23 on page 64 (p. 65 pdf) : http://thei81challenge.org/cm/ResourceFiles/resources/SMTC%20Model%20Version%203.023%20Documentation.pdf
Is that a good enough reference for you?
I've seen 6,000 and 2,000 posted here.
If you know the FActs then please post them.
Quote from: Alps on January 25, 2020, 01:09:04 AMUnlike some people, I can embrace contradiction, as I analyze an issue and work toward finding a solution. That means sometimes being found incorrect and needing to readjust my understanding.Quote from: Beltway on January 25, 2020, 12:06:52 AMYou want a number higher than 6000. You're not getting it. Too bad.Quote from: Alps on January 24, 2020, 08:48:03 PMI'm still trying to determine the FActs and the data.Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 08:15:19 PMPlease stop questioning facts. You have a habit of doing that.Quote from: kalvado on January 24, 2020, 07:48:04 PMAccording to that, closer to 2,000?
Please see figure 23 on page 64 (p. 65 pdf) : http://thei81challenge.org/cm/ResourceFiles/resources/SMTC%20Model%20Version%203.023%20Documentation.pdf
Is that a good enough reference for you?
I've seen 6,000 and 2,000 posted here.
If you know the FActs then please post them.
Quote from: Beltway on January 25, 2020, 01:19:42 AMOK, here goes.Quote from: Alps on January 25, 2020, 01:09:04 AMUnlike some people, I can embrace contradiction, as I analyze an issue and work toward finding a solution. That means sometimes being found incorrect and needing to readjust my understanding.Quote from: Beltway on January 25, 2020, 12:06:52 AMYou want a number higher than 6000. You're not getting it. Too bad.Quote from: Alps on January 24, 2020, 08:48:03 PMI'm still trying to determine the FActs and the data.Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2020, 08:15:19 PMPlease stop questioning facts. You have a habit of doing that.Quote from: kalvado on January 24, 2020, 07:48:04 PMAccording to that, closer to 2,000?
Please see figure 23 on page 64 (p. 65 pdf) : http://thei81challenge.org/cm/ResourceFiles/resources/SMTC%20Model%20Version%203.023%20Documentation.pdf
Is that a good enough reference for you?
I've seen 6,000 and 2,000 posted here.
If you know the FActs then please post them.
Perhaps you could provide us an engineering analysis concerning this data point.
Quote from: vdeane on January 24, 2020, 12:38:20 PMIf a motorist comes toward Syracuse from the south and needs to go to the places mentioned by vdeane, they would have to use 2 or 4-lane suburban roads. For example, if a motorist from Binghamton wants to go to the State Fair, they would either have to go through on the downtown "boulevard" to reach I-690 west or, if they wanted to avoid the downtown area completely, they would have to exit at the Nedrow interchange, go north on US 11, turn left on NY 173, turn right on West Genesee Street to reach the NY 5 Camillus bypass, and then exit on to NY 695 to reach the Fairgrounds. A bit of a convoluted way to reach the destination but there aren't too many other options available short of following current I-481/future I-81 to I-690 west in DeWitt if a motorist wanted to stay on a freeway.
IMO traffic to/from the north really isn't affected much if at all. To get to/from the south, they'll just take current I-481 (which signs already direct them to anyways). If they want to go to/from the mall or downtown, the current route will still be a freeway to I-690. If they want to go to the southwest side, they'll have to take NY 298, which is disappointing, but not a change from current conditions.
It's traffic from Cortland/Binghamton/PA looking to go to the western suburbs/mall/State Fair/points west that feels the big impact - which is why it keeps coming up again and again.
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2020, 06:13:42 PM
Region 3 is developing the DEIS for the community grid option. It's pretty locked in.
Quote from: ixnay on January 25, 2020, 07:13:37 PMQuote from: Rothman on January 25, 2020, 06:13:42 PM
Region 3 is developing the DEIS for the community grid option. It's pretty locked in.
Yep, soon (enough) some Syracusan will have to parody Springsteen's "I'm Going Down". :)
Meanwhile there are other bones of contention re the com-grid:
1) What to name the boulevard.
2) What to number it (and its approaches). Business Loop [I-]81, perhaps?
ixnay
Quote from: Alps on January 25, 2020, 02:04:57 AMThat seems a good analysis, and allows that the study could have been more detailed.Quote from: Beltway on January 25, 2020, 01:19:42 AMOK, here goes.
Perhaps you could provide us an engineering analysis concerning this data point.
This is a very macro model, far outside the reaches of I-481. We only see broad regional data. Anything closer than this, we don't know. So we don't know how much traffic is being generated from either cordon to I-481, going past the other I-481/81 junction. However, in broad terms, 1300 SB and 900 NB trips are through trips on I-81 in this region, or 2200 total. Page 79, the predicted trips are 1700 SB and 1200 NB. However, since the residential density on p. 22-23 is mostly within the confines of I-481, not too much traffic should be added to that. 6,000 is believable.
Quote from: cl94 on January 24, 2020, 09:45:29 PMA number of truckers have threatened to divert to Auburn and elsewhere if the viaduct is removed. The fact that the study didn't include freight is very, very interesting. One would have thought that NYSDOT would have wanted yet more data to prove that the "community grid" won't negatively affect anything significant.
It's nice to finally see numbers, but looking through, there is one key thing missing: freight movements. The study considers person-trips. The words "truck", "freight", or "heavy" appear a total of 0 times in the document. 81 on the south side of the metro is 25% trucks. I want to know how they are moving, how many of them are terminating in the metro area, and where they are terminating in the metro area. If they're using license plate data, it would have been very easy to track truck movements.
Quote from: amroad17 on January 25, 2020, 07:28:42 AMCan't just go up the downtown boulevard to I-690. There will be no interchange between the two. Additional local streets will be needed to make the connection. I assume that's how NYSDOT will force traffic to disperse along the local streets rather than just take the boulevard. The only ramps between I-690 and BL I-81 will be the existing ramps to the freeway to the north.Quote from: vdeane on January 24, 2020, 12:38:20 PMIf a motorist comes toward Syracuse from the south and needs to go to the places mentioned by vdeane, they would have to use 2 or 4-lane suburban roads. For example, if a motorist from Binghamton wants to go to the State Fair, they would either have to go through on the downtown "boulevard" to reach I-690 west or, if they wanted to avoid the downtown area completely, they would have to exit at the Nedrow interchange, go north on US 11, turn left on NY 173, turn right on West Genesee Street to reach the NY 5 Camillus bypass, and then exit on to NY 695 to reach the Fairgrounds. A bit of a convoluted way to reach the destination but there aren't too many other options available short of following current I-481/future I-81 to I-690 west in DeWitt if a motorist wanted to stay on a freeway.
IMO traffic to/from the north really isn't affected much if at all. To get to/from the south, they'll just take current I-481 (which signs already direct them to anyways). If they want to go to/from the mall or downtown, the current route will still be a freeway to I-690. If they want to go to the southwest side, they'll have to take NY 298, which is disappointing, but not a change from current conditions.
It's traffic from Cortland/Binghamton/PA looking to go to the western suburbs/mall/State Fair/points west that feels the big impact - which is why it keeps coming up again and again.
All this is contingent on completing the Community Grid option.
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2020, 06:13:42 PMYeah, because NY has billions for an air train to nowhere that no passenger will use to get to LaGuardia (seriously, we're spending billions to build what will essentially be a shuttle to an employee parking lot that probably wouldn't be needed were there a real and useful transit link to LaGuardia), but doesn't have a couple hundred million to replace the viaduct. It will eviscerate NY's interstate network and Syracuse's freeway network, turning them into random corridor collections, and embolden freeway removal activists everywhere by being the first major through route to be obliterated. Captain Picard put it best:
Region 3 is developing the DEIS for the community grid option. It's pretty locked in.
Quote from: vdeane on January 25, 2020, 10:58:46 PM
I don't like interstate business routes (or bannered routes in general) and would rather that they just go away.
Quote from: ixnay on January 26, 2020, 08:21:07 AMI don't like Interstate Business Routes on a freeways.Quote from: vdeane on January 25, 2020, 10:58:46 PMWe'll have to agree to disagree. What could be so repugnant about bannered routes, vdeane? And is there a thread on AARoads dedicated to this topic?
I don't like interstate business routes (or bannered routes in general) and would rather that they just go away.
Quote from: Beltway on January 26, 2020, 08:42:54 AMWhere?
At least 2 have been proposed in my state, on I-81 and on I-95.
Quote from: Beltway on January 26, 2020, 08:42:54 AMIf it's currently an Interstate and they're bypassing it (like green 40/85 in NC), it should have a 3di number. It was good enough for Interstate in 1957.Quote from: ixnay on January 26, 2020, 08:21:07 AMI don't like Interstate Business Routes on a freeways.Quote from: vdeane on January 25, 2020, 10:58:46 PMWe'll have to agree to disagree. What could be so repugnant about bannered routes, vdeane? And is there a thread on AARoads dedicated to this topic?
I don't like interstate business routes (or bannered routes in general) and would rather that they just go away.
They should be a standard Interstate route, either mainline or supplementary.
At least 2 have been proposed in my state, on I-81 and on I-95.
Quote from: Alps on January 26, 2020, 01:02:27 PMThe I-40 Business segment thru Winston-Salem is currently being eliminated and becoming solely US-421. This route is a full freeway and was apart of I-40 until it was relocated in 1992.
If it's currently an Interstate and they're bypassing it (like green 40/85 in NC), it should have a 3di number. It was good enough for Interstate in 1957.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 26, 2020, 01:14:32 PMSee, unlike a certain poster, I looked those up myself to verify what you say, so I don't need to pester you endlessly for sources. I think that's a mistake. You wouldn't know US 421 or 29/70 would be a viable alternate route that takes you downtown, but an even 3di would give you that information.Quote from: Alps on January 26, 2020, 01:02:27 PMThe I-40 Business segment thru Winston-Salem is currently being eliminated and becoming solely US-421. This route is a full freeway and was apart of I-40 until it was relocated in 1992.
If it's currently an Interstate and they're bypassing it (like green 40/85 in NC), it should have a 3di number. It was good enough for Interstate in 1957.
The I-85 Business segment from Greensboro to Lexington I believe is planned to be phased out and just become US-29 / US-70. This route is a full freeway between I-40 and the I-85 relocation completed in 2004, though is only expressway south of there with a mix of intersections and interchanges.
There was briefly an I-40 Business thru Greensboro when I-40 was relocated along the relocated I-85 and new segment of I-73 south of the city completed in 2008, though I-40 ended up being reverted back to its old route thru the city a few years later.
Quote from: Alps on January 26, 2020, 02:44:14 PMHonestly speaking, who is driving without at least some navigation assistance - GPS, if not some pre-planning? So route numbers in most cases are just that - labels; and prefix isn't very relevant.Quote from: sprjus4 on January 26, 2020, 01:14:32 PMSee, unlike a certain poster, I looked those up myself to verify what you say, so I don't need to pester you endlessly for sources. I think that's a mistake. You wouldn't know US 421 or 29/70 would be a viable alternate route that takes you downtown, but an even 3di would give you that information.Quote from: Alps on January 26, 2020, 01:02:27 PMThe I-40 Business segment thru Winston-Salem is currently being eliminated and becoming solely US-421. This route is a full freeway and was apart of I-40 until it was relocated in 1992.
If it's currently an Interstate and they're bypassing it (like green 40/85 in NC), it should have a 3di number. It was good enough for Interstate in 1957.
The I-85 Business segment from Greensboro to Lexington I believe is planned to be phased out and just become US-29 / US-70. This route is a full freeway between I-40 and the I-85 relocation completed in 2004, though is only expressway south of there with a mix of intersections and interchanges.
There was briefly an I-40 Business thru Greensboro when I-40 was relocated along the relocated I-85 and new segment of I-73 south of the city completed in 2008, though I-40 ended up being reverted back to its old route thru the city a few years later.
Quote from: Alps on January 26, 2020, 02:44:14 PMI-40 Business could reasonably become an even I-x40, though the I-85 Business route is only expressway grade and has at-grade intersections and private driveway connections, so that couldn't be an interstate regardless.
See, unlike a certain poster, I looked those up myself to verify what you say, so I don't need to pester you endlessly for sources. I think that's a mistake. You wouldn't know US 421 or 29/70 would be a viable alternate route that takes you downtown, but an even 3di would give you that information.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 26, 2020, 10:33:11 AMThe I-95 Bypass of Richmond, what to do with existing I-95 between I-85 and I-64, late 1970s.Quote from: Beltway on January 26, 2020, 08:42:54 AMWhere?
At least 2 have been proposed in my state, on I-81 and on I-95.
Quote from: ixnay on January 26, 2020, 08:21:07 AMThey strike me as sloppy and over-complicate the highway system. It's worth noting that I'm not a huge fan of overlaps either (they can be useful in certain circumstances but shouldn't be over-used, which can get frustrated when trying to enter one's travels on Travel Mapping). States with a ton of bannered routes also tend to have a TON of overlaps (see: PA, North Carolina, etc.). A good highway system isn't just a way to help people navigate from Point A to Point B - it's a work of art.Quote from: vdeane on January 25, 2020, 10:58:46 PM
I don't like interstate business routes (or bannered routes in general) and would rather that they just go away.
We'll have to agree to disagree. What could be so repugnant about bannered routes, vdeane? And is there a thread on AARoads dedicated to this topic?
ixnay
Quote from: vdeane on January 26, 2020, 07:56:59 PMQuote from: ixnay on January 26, 2020, 08:21:07 AMThey strike me as sloppy and over-complicate the highway system. It's worth noting that I'm not a huge fan of overlaps either (they can be useful in certain circumstances but shouldn't be over-used, which can get frustrated when trying to enter one's travels on Travel Mapping). States with a ton of bannered routes also tend to have a TON of overlaps (see: PA, North Carolina, etc.). A good highway system isn't just a way to help people navigate from Point A to Point B - it's a work of art.Quote from: vdeane on January 25, 2020, 10:58:46 PM
I don't like interstate business routes (or bannered routes in general) and would rather that they just go away.
We'll have to agree to disagree. What could be so repugnant about bannered routes, vdeane? And is there a thread on AARoads dedicated to this topic?
ixnay
QuoteIt's worth noting that NY doesn't really do bannered routes for the most part. Sure, you'll see a few, but most of them don't actually exist. NYSDOT Main Office doesn't acknowledge the truck routes at all. There is no inventory of them and nobody knows where they all are. NY 52 Business near Beacon is a reference route for half of it and a city street for the other half. US 219 Business is part reference route, rest overlapped with NY 417. US 62 Business, which is the only bannered route in the entire state as far as the Highway Data Services Bureau is concerned, is actually inventoried as US 62B in places because the inventory can't handle banners (the only reason it even exists is because Niagara Falls wouldn't take no for an answer).
If for some reason you really, really need a bannered route somewhere, NY's system of suffixes for child routes gets the job done (although in practice there are a few suffixed routes that are a bit odd and should probably be separate touring routes, like NY 9N).
Quote from: vdeane on January 26, 2020, 07:56:59 PM
It's worth noting that NY doesn't really do bannered routes for the most part. Sure, you'll see a few, but most of them don't actually exist. NYSDOT Main Office doesn't acknowledge the truck routes at all. There is no inventory of them and nobody knows where they all are. NY 52 Business near Beacon is a reference route for half of it and a city street for the other half. US 219 Business is part reference route, rest overlapped with NY 417. US 62 Business, which is the only bannered route in the entire state as far as the Highway Data Services Bureau is concerned, is actually inventoried as US 62B in places because the inventory can't handle banners (the only reason it even exists is because Niagara Falls wouldn't take no for an answer).
If for some reason you really, really need a bannered route somewhere, NY's system of suffixes for child routes gets the job done (although in practice there are a few suffixed routes that are a bit odd and should probably be separate touring routes, like NY 9N).
Quote from: Rothman on January 26, 2020, 11:50:14 PM
The US 6 truck and alternate routes are interesting to me because I wonder if trucks really did use those long detours.
Quote from: cl94 on January 26, 2020, 11:58:18 PMSure, but I still wonder about actual compliance given the length of the detour.Quote from: Rothman on January 26, 2020, 11:50:14 PM
The US 6 truck and alternate routes are interesting to me because I wonder if trucks really did use those long detours.
I mean, with 6 Truck, they don't have much of a choice. I always figured Alternate 6/202 was for when the approach road is closed, which happens occasionally in the winter.
Quote from: ixnay on January 26, 2020, 09:10:20 PM
And closer to the topic, the new boulevard in Syracuse and its freeway approaches could become I-81B (as in Business), if you don't want green-signed interstates.
Quote from: ixnay on January 26, 2020, 09:10:20 PMOne would have to use Series B for such or reduced height Series C.
DE 896 Business in the aforementioned Glasgow, DE should become DE 896A. But can you fit a fourth letter in that oval?
Quote from: TheDon102 on June 18, 2020, 12:51:19 AMIt was 99% around Xmas. By now everything depends on state financial situation probably, so do-nothing is a much more viable option.
Whats the likelihood of the community grid option?
99%??
Quote from: cl94 on August 24, 2020, 12:20:41 PM
I maintain that current I-81 will be falling down before anything is done to reroute it. We're in for a long set of court battles here. NY has tried to remove a couple other urban freeways Upstate and quietly tabled the proposals, so...
(Personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: seicer on August 24, 2020, 01:56:17 PM
Were they just ideas or had they moved into more formal proposals? NY has had success in removing freeways or killing freeways being built elsewhere for decades.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 25, 2020, 06:31:40 PMKeep dreaming. Truth is community grid is a best case scenario. More realistic option though
So, construction on turning Interstate 81 into a boulevard hasn't begun yet (not that I'm surprised). I hope the proposed federal review rejects the "community grid" and recommends the "rebuild the viaduct plan", although in a way that mitigates the impacts of that reconstruction. There should also be aesthetic improvements that make the viaduct less of an eyesore.
Quote from: cl94 on August 24, 2020, 12:20:41 PM
[...] that current I-81 will be falling down before anything is done to reroute it. We're in for a long set of court battles here. NY has tried to remove a couple other urban freeways Upstate and quietly tabled the proposals, so...
(Personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 25, 2020, 08:52:20 PMAn even better option would be to install a teleportation system like every other civilized planet in the galaxy outside of Earth embraces!
The best option would be a tunnel like every other city in the world outside of the US embraces.
Quote from: kalvado on August 25, 2020, 08:59:31 PMIt is incredible that tunnels are compared to teleportation in the US.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 25, 2020, 08:52:20 PMAn even better option would be to install a teleportation system like every other civilized planet in the galaxy outside of Earth embraces!
The best option would be a tunnel like every other city in the world outside of the US embraces.
Let this conclude the sci-fi portion of discussion and move to real stuff.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 25, 2020, 08:52:20 PMMuch more expensive than the viaduct option. Unless you want to slap a hefty toll on it.
The best option would be a tunnel like every other city in the world outside of the US embraces.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 25, 2020, 09:36:15 PMA tolled road is better than no road, IMO. I sucks it is so taboo to build road tunnels anymore in the US. :/Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 25, 2020, 08:52:20 PMMuch more expensive than the viaduct option. Unless you want to slap a hefty toll on it.
The best option would be a tunnel like every other city in the world outside of the US embraces.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 25, 2020, 09:41:34 PMI surely hope this comes from a well meaning person. However being from a well to do area, you may fail to grasp the meaning of a few words to be used in description of Syracuse situation.Quote from: sprjus4 on August 25, 2020, 09:36:15 PMA tolled road is better than no road, IMO. I sucks it is so taboo to build road tunnels anymore in the US. :/Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 25, 2020, 08:52:20 PMMuch more expensive than the viaduct option. Unless you want to slap a hefty toll on it.
The best option would be a tunnel like every other city in the world outside of the US embraces.
Quote from: Rothman on August 25, 2020, 11:27:07 PM
Considering options besides the community grid now is futile. The project has progressed too far through design and there's no reason for FHWA to reject it to the point where other options would be back on the table (especially the tunnel nonsense).
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 26, 2020, 03:20:54 AM
^
Not to mention, through traffic volumes that are not high enough to make a toll self supporting.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 09, 2020, 08:17:07 PMIt's technically still in design. First construction will be on I-481.
Have they started construction on the "community grid" yet? Or are they waiting for the viaduct to fall down first?
Quote from: Alps on January 26, 2020, 02:44:14 PM
You wouldn't know US 421 or 29/70 would be a viable alternate route that takes you downtown, but an even 3di would give you that information.
yakra@BiggaTomato:~/TravelMapping/HighwayData/hwy_data$ for r in `ls */usai/*.wpt | sed 's~^../usai/\(.*\)\.wpt~\1~' | grep '^..\.i[2468]'`; do firefox "https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=$r"; done
Quote from: Buffaboy on October 11, 2020, 06:23:04 PMGiven how many people have mentioned this hunch, it is not just you.
Is it just me or are infrastructure projects much more expensive here in the U.S. than in other countries? Back in the 1950s it didn't cost nearly as much to build a highway. Today, building four miles of highway could cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Look at U.S. 219 in Cattaraugus County. They can't even figure out how to extend it another 20-ish miles to Salamanca with the terrain, budget and land issues.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 12, 2020, 10:01:35 PMIn your infinite wisdom, what would you call a better solution? Bulldozing remainder of the town or robbing Fort Knox to pay for construction?
I second that. However, it looks like that is what will ultimately be built. If Syracuse residents and commuters bitch about how the "community grid" has made things worse for them, we can give them a we-told-you-so!
Quote from: kalvado on October 12, 2020, 10:08:20 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on October 12, 2020, 10:01:35 PMIn your infinite wisdom, what would you call a better solution? Bulldozing remainder of the town or robbing Fort Knox to pay for construction?
I second that. However, it looks like that is what will ultimately be built. If Syracuse residents and commuters bitch about how the "community grid" has made things worse for them, we can give them a we-told-you-so!
Quote from: kalvado on October 12, 2020, 10:08:20 PMPut freeway at ground level. Sink rest of city below it.Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 12, 2020, 10:01:35 PMIn your infinite wisdom, what would you call a better solution? Bulldozing remainder of the town or robbing Fort Knox to pay for construction?
I second that. However, it looks like that is what will ultimately be built. If Syracuse residents and commuters bitch about how the "community grid" has made things worse for them, we can give them a we-told-you-so!
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 12, 2020, 09:24:24 PM
Have I mentioned fuck the community grid?
Quote from: froggie on October 12, 2020, 11:43:32 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on October 12, 2020, 09:24:24 PM
Have I mentioned fuck the community grid?
You're entitled to your opinion. But, given your posting record (both here and on Facebook), you don't seem to understand that freeways are not always the right answer.
Quote from: froggie on October 12, 2020, 11:43:32 PMThere are plenty of times I have supported freeway removals and see at grade boulevards as the right option over freeways. Yes I support freeways most of the time but not always. It seems you are only seeing posts from me about supporting freeways or ignoring my posts where I support their removals like the case with 375 in Detroit.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 12, 2020, 09:24:24 PM
Have I mentioned fuck the community grid?
You're entitled to your opinion. But, given your posting record (both here and on Facebook), you don't seem to understand that freeways are not always the right answer.
Quote from: TheDon102 on October 13, 2020, 02:17:48 AMWe're talking about significant change of alignment in a dense urban area. No, rebuild as-is isn't an option.Quote from: froggie on October 12, 2020, 11:43:32 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on October 12, 2020, 09:24:24 PM
Have I mentioned fuck the community grid?
You're entitled to your opinion. But, given your posting record (both here and on Facebook), you don't seem to understand that freeways are not always the right answer.
How is the freeway not the right answer? It's already exists. No one is talking about a new freeway alignment through dense urban neighborhoods, simply a replacement of what already exists.
Quote from: TheDon102 on October 12, 2020, 10:29:12 PM
Bulldozing the town?? Sounds like a strawman. The proposed new viaduct wasn't the cross bronx... less than 25 properties would have been affected.
Quote from: kalvado on October 13, 2020, 11:29:00 AMQuote from: TheDon102 on October 13, 2020, 02:17:48 AMWe're talking about significant change of alignment in a dense urban area. No, rebuild as-is isn't an option.Quote from: froggie on October 12, 2020, 11:43:32 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on October 12, 2020, 09:24:24 PM
Have I mentioned fuck the community grid?
You're entitled to your opinion. But, given your posting record (both here and on Facebook), you don't seem to understand that freeways are not always the right answer.
How is the freeway not the right answer? It's already exists. No one is talking about a new freeway alignment through dense urban neighborhoods, simply a replacement of what already exists.
No, not even that way.
No, that wouldn't work as well.
Nope, that was already discussed.
Quote from: kalvado on October 13, 2020, 11:29:00 AMWe went to the moon yet rebuilding a road is too complex and expensive for one of the largest states in the country to take on. New York is also one of the highest taxed yet another excuse is there isn't enough money. Give me a break.Quote from: TheDon102 on October 13, 2020, 02:17:48 AMWe're talking about significant change of alignment in a dense urban area. No, rebuild as-is isn't an option.Quote from: froggie on October 12, 2020, 11:43:32 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on October 12, 2020, 09:24:24 PM
Have I mentioned fuck the community grid?
You're entitled to your opinion. But, given your posting record (both here and on Facebook), you don't seem to understand that freeways are not always the right answer.
How is the freeway not the right answer? It's already exists. No one is talking about a new freeway alignment through dense urban neighborhoods, simply a replacement of what already exists.
No, not even that way.
No, that wouldn't work as well.
Nope, that was already discussed.
Quote from: Alps on October 13, 2020, 12:32:44 PMThe community grid has been picked as the preferred alternative. There were others presented and I'm sure that examples exist of a project being canceled or altered after a preferred alternative was chosen. I don't see a discussion about the disappointment some folks have with this choice that hasn't been built or started yet dishonest or off topic.
Instead of going back and forth with our opinions, why don't we leave this thread to discuss factual, ongoing developments with I-81? Thanks in advance.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 13, 2020, 12:43:11 PMQuote from: Alps on October 13, 2020, 12:32:44 PMThe community grid has been picked as the preferred alternative. There were others presented and I'm sure that examples exist of a project being canceled or altered after a preferred alternative was chosen. I don't see a discussion about the disappointment some folks have with this choice that hasn't been built or started yet dishonest or off topic.
Instead of going back and forth with our opinions, why don't we leave this thread to discuss factual, ongoing developments with I-81? Thanks in advance.
Quote from: kalvado on October 13, 2020, 02:08:10 PMI get it. My reference to the landing on moon was just an apology how the US used to build incredible things that we still marvel at today and though we still build great things, far too often I read articles about proposed projects that get shot down with arguments that it simply can't be done due to this or that.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 13, 2020, 12:43:11 PMQuote from: Alps on October 13, 2020, 12:32:44 PMThe community grid has been picked as the preferred alternative. There were others presented and I'm sure that examples exist of a project being canceled or altered after a preferred alternative was chosen. I don't see a discussion about the disappointment some folks have with this choice that hasn't been built or started yet dishonest or off topic.
Instead of going back and forth with our opinions, why don't we leave this thread to discuss factual, ongoing developments with I-81? Thanks in advance.
Nobody really likes community grid - but there is no better option here. Unfortunately, things just lined up the wrong way...
And if you want to compare things to Apollo program.. Just think about it - Wernher von Braun and Kurt Debus would have a lot of problems with H1B's these days...
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 12, 2020, 10:01:35 PMI don't think the Syracuse public is unified around a particular alternative. I think it was a purely financial decision. A few hundred million dollars of difference is pretty darned significant.
I second that. However, it looks like that is what will ultimately be built. If Syracuse residents and commuters bitch about how the "community grid" has made things worse for them, we can give them a we-told-you-so!
Quote from: Rothman on October 14, 2020, 01:36:06 PMI would rephrase that as different groups of locals are pretty unified against different options with no real consensus. Which means a lot of court and forum battlesQuote from: The Ghostbuster on October 12, 2020, 10:01:35 PMI don't think the Syracuse public is unified around a particular alternative. I think it was a purely financial decision. A few hundred million dollars of difference is pretty darned significant.
I second that. However, it looks like that is what will ultimately be built. If Syracuse residents and commuters bitch about how the "community grid" has made things worse for them, we can give them a we-told-you-so!
The major outstanding concern that I see is traffic coming from the south and headed west. Not sure that issue will be resolved satisfactorily.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: Rothman on October 14, 2020, 01:36:06 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on October 12, 2020, 10:01:35 PMI don't think the Syracuse public is unified around a particular alternative. I think it was a purely financial decision. A few hundred million dollars of difference is pretty darned significant.
I second that. However, it looks like that is what will ultimately be built. If Syracuse residents and commuters bitch about how the "community grid" has made things worse for them, we can give them a we-told-you-so!
The major outstanding concern that I see is traffic coming from the south and headed west. Not sure that issue will be resolved satisfactorily.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: dkblake on October 14, 2020, 06:00:19 PMQuote from: Rothman on October 14, 2020, 01:36:06 PM
...
The major outstanding concern that I see is traffic coming from the south and headed west. Not sure that issue will be resolved satisfactorily.
(personal opinion emphasized)
I guess in theory the signs around Cortland will become "Trucks to Rochester Take I-81 to I-90 at Exit 34B"? (I'm somewhat out of the loop, but I'm assuming I-481 would become I-81 mainline.) It would probably add about 10 minutes- enough to be annoying, especially with DeWitt traffic, but not enough for other routing alternatives (i.e. NY 41) to be that viable.
Quote from: Rothman on October 14, 2020, 11:59:30 PM
Just so you know, traffic light timing in Syracuse is terrible. Synchronization is minimal. I don't see that changing with the grid.
Quote from: webny99 on October 15, 2020, 08:15:18 AMOnce upon a time, I witnessed how that was attempted in Albany. Left me wonder if NYSDOT engineers are able to find their gluts using both upper limbs!Quote from: Rothman on October 14, 2020, 11:59:30 PM
Just so you know, traffic light timing in Syracuse is terrible. Synchronization is minimal. I don't see that changing with the grid.
I wondered about that. If there's little to no chance of getting a green wave, that's going to deter long-distance traffic.
Is it known yet how many total lights there would be on the new boulevard?
Quote from: webny99 on October 15, 2020, 08:15:18 AM
Is it known yet how many total lights there would be on the new boulevard?
Quote from: cl94 on October 15, 2020, 12:38:47 PM
Alright, time to answer a lot of the points brought up in the past few days while I was on vacation...
"Why can't they rebuild what they have?": Feds will only allow a complete rebuild that does not meet modern standards if there is an engineering reason why those standards could not be met. Rebuilding on the current alignment, but meeting modern standards, is technically feasible.
"It's only X properties!": Problem is what those properties are. Current I-81 is shoehorned in between a hospital and low-income housing, possibly the two hardest things to relocate right now. Most (if not all) affected properties are low-income housing or Syracuse University/its hospital and relocating either is politically infeasible.
"But what about 29/50 in Birmingham?": Different circumstances. ROW wasn't nearly as constrained and property takings were minimal. Even if there was property taking, Alabama is far more willing to plow through minority neighborhoods to build a road than New York is.
These points and the legal battles to come are why I expect the viaduct to fall down before shovels hit the ground.
(Personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: cl94 on October 15, 2020, 12:38:47 PMYou know, though, existing hospital and low-income housing ARE engineering reasons - you can't engineer a road without taking properties that are infeasible.
Alright, time to answer a lot of the points brought up in the past few days while I was on vacation...
"Why can't they rebuild what they have?": Feds will only allow a complete rebuild that does not meet modern standards if there is an engineering reason why those standards could not be met. Rebuilding on the current alignment, but meeting modern standards, is technically feasible.
"It's only X properties!": Problem is what those properties are. Current I-81 is shoehorned in between a hospital and low-income housing, possibly the two hardest things to relocate right now. Most (if not all) affected properties are low-income housing or Syracuse University/its hospital and relocating either is politically infeasible.
"But what about 29/50 in Birmingham?": Different circumstances. ROW wasn't nearly as constrained and property takings were minimal. Even if there was property taking, Alabama is far more willing to plow through minority neighborhoods to build a road than New York is.
These points and the legal battles to come are why I expect the viaduct to fall down before shovels hit the ground.
(Personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: cl94 on October 15, 2020, 12:38:47 PMthen build the damn tunnel. How can one of the richest counties in the world not afford a 10> mile tunnel. This is embarrassing. I guess I'll just bitch about this like the 710 tunnel in LA that wasn't built until it's done.
Alright, time to answer a lot of the points brought up in the past few days while I was on vacation...
"Why can't they rebuild what they have?": Feds will only allow a complete rebuild that does not meet modern standards if there is an engineering reason why those standards could not be met. Rebuilding on the current alignment, but meeting modern standards, is technically feasible.
"It's only X properties!": Problem is what those properties are. Current I-81 is shoehorned in between a hospital and low-income housing, possibly the two hardest things to relocate right now. Most (if not all) affected properties are low-income housing or Syracuse University/its hospital and relocating either is politically infeasible.
"But what about 29/50 in Birmingham?": Different circumstances. ROW wasn't nearly as constrained and property takings were minimal. Even if there was property taking, Alabama is far more willing to plow through minority neighborhoods to build a road than New York is.
These points and the legal battles to come are why I expect the viaduct to fall down before shovels hit the ground.
(Personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 15, 2020, 03:02:36 PMYou better ask how residents of Syracuse can afford minimal housing and food (the answer is subsidized substandard housing and food stamps, as 30% live below poverty line). This is before any geology questions are asked.Quote from: cl94 on October 15, 2020, 12:38:47 PMthen build the damn tunnel. How can one of the richest counties in the world not afford a 10> mile tunnel. This is embarrassing. I guess I'll just bitch about this like the 710 tunnel in LA that wasn't built until it's done.
Alright, time to answer a lot of the points brought up in the past few days while I was on vacation...
"Why can't they rebuild what they have?": Feds will only allow a complete rebuild that does not meet modern standards if there is an engineering reason why those standards could not be met. Rebuilding on the current alignment, but meeting modern standards, is technically feasible.
"It's only X properties!": Problem is what those properties are. Current I-81 is shoehorned in between a hospital and low-income housing, possibly the two hardest things to relocate right now. Most (if not all) affected properties are low-income housing or Syracuse University/its hospital and relocating either is politically infeasible.
"But what about 29/50 in Birmingham?": Different circumstances. ROW wasn't nearly as constrained and property takings were minimal. Even if there was property taking, Alabama is far more willing to plow through minority neighborhoods to build a road than New York is.
These points and the legal battles to come are why I expect the viaduct to fall down before shovels hit the ground.
(Personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: Alps on October 15, 2020, 02:18:53 PMQuote from: cl94 on October 15, 2020, 12:38:47 PMYou know, though, existing hospital and low-income housing ARE engineering reasons - you can't engineer a road without taking properties that are infeasible.
Alright, time to answer a lot of the points brought up in the past few days while I was on vacation...
"Why can't they rebuild what they have?": Feds will only allow a complete rebuild that does not meet modern standards if there is an engineering reason why those standards could not be met. Rebuilding on the current alignment, but meeting modern standards, is technically feasible.
"It's only X properties!": Problem is what those properties are. Current I-81 is shoehorned in between a hospital and low-income housing, possibly the two hardest things to relocate right now. Most (if not all) affected properties are low-income housing or Syracuse University/its hospital and relocating either is politically infeasible.
"But what about 29/50 in Birmingham?": Different circumstances. ROW wasn't nearly as constrained and property takings were minimal. Even if there was property taking, Alabama is far more willing to plow through minority neighborhoods to build a road than New York is.
These points and the legal battles to come are why I expect the viaduct to fall down before shovels hit the ground.
(Personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: cl94 on October 15, 2020, 03:21:13 PM
Define "infeasible". It's not technical infeasibility here, it's political infeasibility. As in NY is unwilling to relocate low-income housing. It's certainly possible to do so, but it would get so dragged down in court that it's not even worth attempting. FHWA only issues exemptions for physical infeasibility.
(Personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: dkblake on October 15, 2020, 04:42:15 PMQuote from: cl94 on October 15, 2020, 03:21:13 PM
Define "infeasible". It's not technical infeasibility here, it's political infeasibility. As in NY is unwilling to relocate low-income housing. It's certainly possible to do so, but it would get so dragged down in court that it's not even worth attempting. FHWA only issues exemptions for physical infeasibility.
(Personal opinion emphasized)
Especially since the political argument for getting rid of the viaduct is that it contributed to "other side of the tracks" inequality between the wealthier University hill and the poorer South Side projects...
Quote from: kalvado on October 15, 2020, 03:08:00 PMI am not quite sure what you're getting at. It isn't about being to afford it. This country has the money to undertake massive infrastructure projects. It's about allocating the money and as said here political feasibility. This freeway serves more than the residents of Syracuse.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 15, 2020, 03:02:36 PMYou better ask how residents of Syracuse can afford minimal housing and food (the answer is subsidized substandard housing and food stamps, as 30% live below poverty line). This is before any geology questions are asked.Quote from: cl94 on October 15, 2020, 12:38:47 PMthen build the damn tunnel. How can one of the richest counties in the world not afford a 10> mile tunnel. This is embarrassing. I guess I'll just bitch about this like the 710 tunnel in LA that wasn't built until it's done.
Alright, time to answer a lot of the points brought up in the past few days while I was on vacation...
"Why can't they rebuild what they have?": Feds will only allow a complete rebuild that does not meet modern standards if there is an engineering reason why those standards could not be met. Rebuilding on the current alignment, but meeting modern standards, is technically feasible.
"It's only X properties!": Problem is what those properties are. Current I-81 is shoehorned in between a hospital and low-income housing, possibly the two hardest things to relocate right now. Most (if not all) affected properties are low-income housing or Syracuse University/its hospital and relocating either is politically infeasible.
"But what about 29/50 in Birmingham?": Different circumstances. ROW wasn't nearly as constrained and property takings were minimal. Even if there was property taking, Alabama is far more willing to plow through minority neighborhoods to build a road than New York is.
These points and the legal battles to come are why I expect the viaduct to fall down before shovels hit the ground.
(Personal opinion emphasized)
Unlike much milder CA, living in the street in winter is not an option in upstate NY...and unlike well-to-do CA, rust belt cannot afford a few extra billion on frivolous highway projects.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 16, 2020, 03:45:54 AMI don't know which country you live in, but in US highway trust fund is predicted to go into red in a few years, federal and state budgets are running significantly deficit, and arguably much more important project of similar value in NY - replacement of Tappan Zee bridge, a strategic link between upstate and NYC - was done using loans without identified repayment sources.
This country has the money to undertake massive infrastructure projects.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 16, 2020, 03:45:54 AMJust horrible short term planning going on here.Why, it is pretty much a part of a long term strategy: "last person out of upstate, please turn off the lights before you leave". More seriously, negative growth of population is a predicted trend over here, traffic is planned accordingly
Quote from: kalvado on October 17, 2020, 03:07:57 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on October 16, 2020, 03:45:54 AMI don't know which country you live in, but in US highway trust fund is predicted to go into red in a few years, federal and state budgets are running significantly deficit, and arguably much more important project of similar value - replacement of Tappan Zee bridge, a strategic link between upstate and NYC - was done using loans without identified repayment sources.
This country has the money to undertake massive infrastructure projects.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 16, 2020, 03:45:54 AMJust horrible short term planning going on here.Why, it is pretty much a part of a long term strategy: "last person out of upstate, please turn off the lights before you leave"
Quote from: kphoger on October 15, 2020, 05:54:22 PM
Wow, am I the only one who did a double-take at dkblake's username?
dzlsabe
dkblake
Quote from: longhorn on May 27, 2021, 09:45:25 AMIf you take some time to read 810 prior replies in this thread, you may find some of the answers.
https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-BIDEN/INFRASTRUCTURE-FREEWAYS/qzjpqbzzyvx/
So where does I-81 traffic goes to when the freeway is torn down? How do you go west onto 690? Are the businesses fine with this?
Quote from: kalvado on May 27, 2021, 11:00:56 AM
One line summary: "it is complicated!"
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 27, 2021, 11:16:07 AM
Here's my opinion on this one. Remove 81 and 690. A city the size of Syracuse never needed them anyway. I support removals in the case if it's for small cities like this because it was over kill to begin with. For larger cities I only support it in cases where it is a spur or piece of an unbuilt larger section, i.e. 375 in Detroit.
Quote from: webny99 on May 27, 2021, 11:22:39 AMQuote from: kalvado on May 27, 2021, 11:00:56 AM
One line summary: "it is complicated!"
:clap:Quote from: silverback1065 on May 27, 2021, 11:16:07 AM
Here's my opinion on this one. Remove 81 and 690. A city the size of Syracuse never needed them anyway. I support removals in the case if it's for small cities like this because it was over kill to begin with. For larger cities I only support it in cases where it is a spur or piece of an unbuilt larger section, i.e. 375 in Detroit.
I-81 has a lot of through traffic, and there aren't good alternate routes elsewhere in the metro. Try connecting between south and west without using I-81 or I-690.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 27, 2021, 11:16:07 AM
Here's my opinion on this one. Remove 81 and 690. A city the size of Syracuse never needed them anyway.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 27, 2021, 11:33:58 AMQuote from: webny99 on May 27, 2021, 11:22:39 AMQuote from: silverback1065 on May 27, 2021, 11:16:07 AM
Here's my opinion on this one. Remove 81 and 690. A city the size of Syracuse never needed them anyway. I support removals in the case if it's for small cities like this because it was over kill to begin with. For larger cities I only support it in cases where it is a spur or piece of an unbuilt larger section, i.e. 375 in Detroit.
I-81 has a lot of through traffic, and there aren't good alternate routes elsewhere in the metro. Try connecting between south and west without using I-81 or I-690.
I don't know the area well so feel free to educate me. seems like changing 481 to 81 and moving any traffic that used 690 onto 90 would work fine. why am I wrong? I'm interested in learning more about this debate.
Quote from: longhorn on May 27, 2021, 09:45:25 AMI-481. I-481 or the boulevard, even though both will likely at least double the time it takes to get from I-81 south of exit 16A to I-690 west of I-81. Hell no they aren't, DestiNY USA and the hotels in Salina have been the leading advocates for keeping I-81 through the city in some form.
https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-BIDEN/INFRASTRUCTURE-FREEWAYS/qzjpqbzzyvx/
So where does I-81 traffic goes to when the freeway is torn down? How do you go west onto 690? Are the businesses fine with this?
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2021, 12:32:35 PMLast I heard, yes on the junctions, no on a general widening. What widening is there would be on a limited scope within the I-690-Thruway corridor (and wouldn't even be the full length both directions).
Is funding in place to widen all of I-481 to a minimum of 6 through lanes, and reconfigure the north and south I-81 junctions to provide continuity? If they are so serious about demolishing I-81, they need to be equally as serious as accommodating that traffic on other facilities. Don't cheap out and just expecting the existing I-481 and I-81 junctions to adequately handle the new load.
Quote from: webny99 on May 27, 2021, 12:15:01 PMSuch is also why I don't like it. Also the fact that I just don't like business interstate routes. Going back to the original proposal for a 3di with a state route extension on the non-freeway part would make me happier, and building that western bypass that was previously planned and giving it a 3di number would make me happier still.
There is a lot more discussion earlier in the thread with volume data as well as analysis of what specific start and endpoints would be affected the most. Rochester to NYC/Phila is one of those, which is partly why I am firmly against the removal. If this was an issue local to downtown Syracuse it would be one thing, but it's a totally different conversation when it's an integral part of a corridor with significant long-distance traffic.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2021, 03:33:20 PMNot demolishing that viaduct is not an option. It passed the point if no return in terms of structural condition.
^
A western bypass would certainly address the needs of I-81 North to I-690 West to ultimately I-90 West. If such was in place, then I could see more viability in demolishing the viaduct. But since it currents holds that regional traffic movement, then no.
Quote from: kalvado on May 27, 2021, 03:36:16 PMThat's what I meant... by saying demolishing I'm meaning fully get rid of, apply their street grid concept, etc. What needs to happen is a proper replacement.Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2021, 03:33:20 PMNot demolishing that viaduct is not an option. It passed the point if no return in terms of structural condition.
^
A western bypass would certainly address the needs of I-81 North to I-690 West to ultimately I-90 West. If such was in place, then I could see more viability in demolishing the viaduct. But since it currents holds that regional traffic movement, then no.
Questions are what would replace the old structure and when that is going to happen.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2021, 03:38:19 PMNope. Sorry, not gonna happenQuote from: kalvado on May 27, 2021, 03:36:16 PMThat's what I meant... by saying demolishing I'm meaning fully get rid of, apply their street grid concept, etc. What needs to happen is a proper replacement.Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2021, 03:33:20 PMNot demolishing that viaduct is not an option. It passed the point if no return in terms of structural condition.
^
A western bypass would certainly address the needs of I-81 North to I-690 West to ultimately I-90 West. If such was in place, then I could see more viability in demolishing the viaduct. But since it currents holds that regional traffic movement, then no.
Questions are what would replace the old structure and when that is going to happen.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2021, 12:32:35 PM
Is funding in place to widen all of I-481 to a minimum of 6 through lanes, and reconfigure the north and south I-81 junctions to provide continuity? If they are so serious about demolishing I-81, they need to be equally as serious as accommodating that traffic on other facilities. Don't cheap out and just expecting the existing I-481 and I-81 junctions to adequately handle the new load.
Quote from: webny99 on May 27, 2021, 05:54:32 PM
To take a slightly optimistic view, you might be able to get away with the existing four lanes north of I-90. Current I-81 has six lanes on the parallel section and would still serve most of the local traffic.
Quote from: sparker on May 27, 2021, 05:46:15 PMQuote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2021, 12:32:35 PM
Is funding in place to widen all of I-481 to a minimum of 6 through lanes, and reconfigure the north and south I-81 junctions to provide continuity? If they are so serious about demolishing I-81, they need to be equally as serious as accommodating that traffic on other facilities. Don't cheap out and just expecting the existing I-481 and I-81 junctions to adequately handle the new load.
At a bare minimum, the southern (current) I-81/481 interchange will require enough of a rebuild to deploy two through lanes both northbound and southbound from southward I-81 to the bypass, and the northern cloverleaf will require a SB 81>481 2-lane flyover for the same effect plus an expansion of NB 481>81 to the same two lanes as the southern facility.
Quote from: froggie on May 27, 2021, 08:08:06 PMDoes that number factor in I-81 to I-690? No one is taking I-81 directly to I-90.
with only about 2-2.5K of that going between the aforementioned 81 South and 90 West.
Quote from: froggie on May 27, 2021, 08:08:06 PM
Regarding the "through traffic" that some in this thread have continually railed about, NYSDOT's studies noted that there is not a large volume of such. Less than 7K a day total, with only about 2-2.5K of that going between the aforementioned 81 South and 90 West.
Quote from: webny99 on May 27, 2021, 09:23:17 PMThose who need to go from NYC to Toronto are generally flying. Same with NYC to Buffalo. DC to Ottawa is likely mostly documents.Quote from: froggie on May 27, 2021, 08:08:06 PM
Regarding the "through traffic" that some in this thread have continually railed about, NYSDOT's studies noted that there is not a large volume of such. Less than 7K a day total, with only about 2-2.5K of that going between the aforementioned 81 South and 90 West.
To the extent that those estimates are even believable (it is certainly much more than that during summer travel season), it is unfair, extremely narrow-minded, and quite frankly, detached from reality to dismiss that as "not much".
This is one of the most integral pieces of interstate in a region that is (a) in the conversation for the crossroads of the state (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20723.msg2244607#msg2244607) and (b) centrally located to and used for travel between much of the East Coast, Ontario, and Quebec, as illustrated by the fact that it is:
(a) part of the fastest all-freeway route between New York City and Toronto, each the largest city in their respective country
(b) part of the fastest all-freeway route between Washington DC and Ottawa, each the capital city in their respective country
(c) part of the fastest all-freeway route between New York City and Buffalo, the two largest population centers in New York state.
But no, not much through traffic. Not much at all. Hardly any, in fact.
[/sarcasm]
Call it railing if you will, but is absolute absurdity, bordering on insanity, not to identify through traffic as a MAJOR, SIGNIFICANT concern here.
Quote from: kalvado on May 27, 2021, 09:36:24 PMThat's a bold assumption to make.
Those who need to go from NYC to Toronto are generally flying. Same with NYC to Buffalo. DC to Ottawa is likely mostly documents.
Quote from: vdeane on May 27, 2021, 10:11:19 PMSo then it's skewed. Plain and simple.
It's worth noting that NYSDOT's policies for collecting routine AADT data are designed to specifically exclude seasonal/weekend/tourist traffic as much as possible (only weekday hours excluding Friday afternoon are factored into the AADT numbers, for example, and data from certain days around holidays is not accepted), so such traffic would only be included if the specifically sought it out to factor in.
Quote from: webny99 on May 27, 2021, 09:23:17 PMQuote from: froggie on May 27, 2021, 08:08:06 PM
Regarding the "through traffic" that some in this thread have continually railed about, NYSDOT's studies noted that there is not a large volume of such. Less than 7K a day total, with only about 2-2.5K of that going between the aforementioned 81 South and 90 West.
To the extent that those estimates are even believable (it is certainly much more than that during summer travel season), it is unfair, extremely narrow-minded, and quite frankly, detached from reality to dismiss that as "not much".
This is one of the most integral pieces of interstate in a region that is (a) in the conversation for the crossroads of the state (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20723.msg2244607#msg2244607) and (b) centrally located to and used for travel between much of the East Coast, Ontario, and Quebec, as illustrated by the fact that it is:
(a) part of the fastest all-freeway route between New York City and Toronto, each the largest city in their respective country
(b) part of the fastest all-freeway route between Washington DC and Ottawa, each the capital city in their respective country
(c) part of the fastest all-freeway route between New York City and Buffalo, the two largest population centers in New York state.
But no, not much through traffic. Not much at all. Hardly any, in fact.
[/sarcasm]
Call it railing if you will, but is absolute absurdity, bordering on insanity, not to identify through traffic as a MAJOR, SIGNIFICANT concern here.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 27, 2021, 11:16:07 AMIt was at 220,000 and growing when the decisions were made. It's now 2/3 the size. I think it did need them at the time, and while it may or may not now, it should at least have competent arterials into downtown with limited interruption.
Here's my opinion on this one. Remove 81 and 690. A city the size of Syracuse never needed them anyway. I support removals in the case if it's for small cities like this because it was over kill to begin with. For larger cities I only support it in cases where it is a spur or piece of an unbuilt larger section, i.e. 375 in Detroit.
Quote from: froggie on May 28, 2021, 12:22:10 AMHave to agree here. The three movements he bolded really aren't that significant. There was a movement back in the early 2000s to have DOTs focus on the capital-to-capital corridor and it fizzled due to lack of demand, just as one example. NYC to Toronto and NYC to Buffalo just don't cut the mustard compared even to NYC to Albany.Quote from: webny99 on May 27, 2021, 09:23:17 PMQuote from: froggie on May 27, 2021, 08:08:06 PM
Regarding the "through traffic" that some in this thread have continually railed about, NYSDOT's studies noted that there is not a large volume of such. Less than 7K a day total, with only about 2-2.5K of that going between the aforementioned 81 South and 90 West.
To the extent that those estimates are even believable (it is certainly much more than that during summer travel season), it is unfair, extremely narrow-minded, and quite frankly, detached from reality to dismiss that as "not much".
This is one of the most integral pieces of interstate in a region that is (a) in the conversation for the crossroads of the state (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20723.msg2244607#msg2244607) and (b) centrally located to and used for travel between much of the East Coast, Ontario, and Quebec, as illustrated by the fact that it is:
(a) part of the fastest all-freeway route between New York City and Toronto, each the largest city in their respective country
(b) part of the fastest all-freeway route between Washington DC and Ottawa, each the capital city in their respective country
(c) part of the fastest all-freeway route between New York City and Buffalo, the two largest population centers in New York state.
But no, not much through traffic. Not much at all. Hardly any, in fact.
[/sarcasm]
Call it railing if you will, but is absolute absurdity, bordering on insanity, not to identify through traffic as a MAJOR, SIGNIFICANT concern here.
In the context of the ~80K that the viaduct carries just south of 690, yes it is "not much" compared to the overall. Even if the ~7K figure is lowballed (which, given the events of the past 18 months, it's probably high at the moment), you're still taking a small percentage of overall traffic...traffic on the viaduct is still overwhelmingly local in nature. But you and Val continue to make it out to be much larger than the numbers show it actually is.
Quote from: Alps on May 28, 2021, 12:42:00 AMQuote from: silverback1065 on May 27, 2021, 11:16:07 AMIt was at 220,000 and growing when the decisions were made. It's now 2/3 the size. I think it did need them at the time, and while it may or may not now, it should at least have competent arterials into downtown with limited interruption.
Here's my opinion on this one. Remove 81 and 690. A city the size of Syracuse never needed them anyway. I support removals in the case if it's for small cities like this because it was over kill to begin with. For larger cities I only support it in cases where it is a spur or piece of an unbuilt larger section, i.e. 375 in Detroit.
Quote from: Rothman on May 28, 2021, 07:35:00 AMProbably because we're the ones with ties to Rochester who would lose out. I've gotten used to being able to take interstates exclusively most everywhere without going out of the way (such is not possible for someone living in Vermont, obviously, and indeed Vermont and Rhode Island are the only states I can't get to on the direct route on exclusively interstates outside of the "last mile" connections). I can also see from the traffic on the Thruway it's it's obviously not a negligible movement, at least on tourist weekends. Like I said, due to how NYSDOT's traffic count program works, such traffic would not be counted unless such was specifically requested when studying this, as the standard three year cycle counts are designed to specifically exclude such (I should know; I was doing R1's volume count processing for several months after I was first hired, and then again for a couple months a couple years later when the person who does it had an extended absence). There are a TON of PA plates west of Syracuse, nearly none east, and I doubt they're all coming from Erie to go vacation in Syracuse after the long weekend is over.Quote from: froggie on May 28, 2021, 12:22:10 AMHave to agree here. The three movements he bolded really aren't that significant. There was a movement back in the early 2000s to have DOTs focus on the capital-to-capital corridor and it fizzled due to lack of demand, just as one example. NYC to Toronto and NYC to Buffalo just don't cut the mustard compared even to NYC to Albany.Quote from: webny99 on May 27, 2021, 09:23:17 PMQuote from: froggie on May 27, 2021, 08:08:06 PM
Regarding the "through traffic" that some in this thread have continually railed about, NYSDOT's studies noted that there is not a large volume of such. Less than 7K a day total, with only about 2-2.5K of that going between the aforementioned 81 South and 90 West.
To the extent that those estimates are even believable (it is certainly much more than that during summer travel season), it is unfair, extremely narrow-minded, and quite frankly, detached from reality to dismiss that as "not much".
This is one of the most integral pieces of interstate in a region that is (a) in the conversation for the crossroads of the state (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20723.msg2244607#msg2244607) and (b) centrally located to and used for travel between much of the East Coast, Ontario, and Quebec, as illustrated by the fact that it is:
(a) part of the fastest all-freeway route between New York City and Toronto, each the largest city in their respective country
(b) part of the fastest all-freeway route between Washington DC and Ottawa, each the capital city in their respective country
(c) part of the fastest all-freeway route between New York City and Buffalo, the two largest population centers in New York state.
But no, not much through traffic. Not much at all. Hardly any, in fact.
[/sarcasm]
Call it railing if you will, but is absolute absurdity, bordering on insanity, not to identify through traffic as a MAJOR, SIGNIFICANT concern here.
In the context of the ~80K that the viaduct carries just south of 690, yes it is "not much" compared to the overall. Even if the ~7K figure is lowballed (which, given the events of the past 18 months, it's probably high at the moment), you're still taking a small percentage of overall traffic...traffic on the viaduct is still overwhelmingly local in nature. But you and Val continue to make it out to be much larger than the numbers show it actually is.
Quote from: Rothman on May 30, 2021, 12:02:39 AMIt will probably be felt the most by people who live in the western suburbs. Get close to exit 16A, think you're almost home, only to realize that it will take twice as long as it used to.
An extra 8 minutes. Yep, an inconvenience, but at least it's all freeway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 30, 2021, 02:32:08 AMStill longer, at least from most (all?) points around Rochester, believe it or not. And if one is being really strict about traveling along the interstate system, NY 17 probably won't be formally designated I-86 any time soon, even west of Binghamton.
Might as well just route I-390 -> I-86 at this point with that added time. Avoids the Thruway too.
Quote from: vdeane on May 30, 2021, 12:51:58 PMI know, but now it will only be a few minutes. Over a long distance, it's probably a wash. Plus, wouldn't I-86 simply carry less traffic overall, making it a more pleasant routing than the toll road?Quote from: sprjus4 on May 30, 2021, 02:32:08 AMStill longer, at least from most (all?) points around Rochester, believe it or not. And if one is being really strict about traveling along the interstate system, NY 17 probably won't be formally designated I-86 any time soon, even west of Binghamton.
Might as well just route I-390 -> I-86 at this point with that added time. Avoids the Thruway too.
Quote from: froggie on May 28, 2021, 12:22:10 AM
In the context of the ~80K that the viaduct carries just south of 690, yes it is "not much" compared to the overall. Even if the ~7K figure is lowballed (which, given the events of the past 18 months, it's probably high at the moment), you're still taking a small percentage of overall traffic...traffic on the viaduct is still overwhelmingly local in nature.
Quote from: vdeane on May 28, 2021, 08:59:44 PMQuote from: froggie on May 28, 2021, 12:22:10 AMProbably because we're the ones with ties to Rochester who would lose out.
... But you and Val continue to make it out to be much larger than the numbers show it actually is.
Quote from: vdeane on May 28, 2021, 08:59:44 PM
I can also see from the traffic on the Thruway it's it's obviously not a negligible movement, at least on tourist weekends. ... There are a TON of PA plates west of Syracuse, nearly none east, and I doubt they're all coming from Erie to go vacation in Syracuse after the long weekend is over.
Quote from: Rothman on May 28, 2021, 07:35:00 AM
Have to agree here. The three movements he bolded really aren't that significant. ... NYC to Toronto and NYC to Buffalo just don't cut the mustard compared even to NYC to Albany.
Quote from: Rothman on May 28, 2021, 07:35:00 AM
There was a movement back in the early 2000s to have DOTs focus on the capital-to-capital corridor and it fizzled due to lack of demand, just as one example.
Quote from: webny99 on June 03, 2021, 07:52:08 AMQuote from: froggie on May 28, 2021, 12:22:10 AM
In the context of the ~80K that the viaduct carries just south of 690, yes it is "not much" compared to the overall. Even if the ~7K figure is lowballed (which, given the events of the past 18 months, it's probably high at the moment), you're still taking a small percentage of overall traffic...traffic on the viaduct is still overwhelmingly local in nature.
I don't recall ever saying that it's high in percentage terms - of course it won't be that high in a CBD during commuter hours - only that's it's very significant nonetheless. My issue with dismissing through traffic is that the entire purpose of the interstate system is to serve medium- and long-distance traffic, which the I-81 viaduct certainly does — and for a large area of both the Northeastern US and Canada, not to mention Syracuse's own suburbs (I would consider anyone not coming to/from the immediate downtown area to be "through traffic" , and that would include plenty of suburb-to-suburb commutes).Quote from: vdeane on May 28, 2021, 08:59:44 PMQuote from: froggie on May 28, 2021, 12:22:10 AMProbably because we're the ones with ties to Rochester who would lose out.
... But you and Val continue to make it out to be much larger than the numbers show it actually is.
Certainly, due in no small part to the fact that I actually use it often for long-distance travel - enough times that I've lost count, but I know it's well over a dozen, and for a wide range of trips — family in the NYC area, friends in the Philly area, last summer's trip to the ocean, and last weekend's trip to the Catskills, just to name a few.Quote from: vdeane on May 28, 2021, 08:59:44 PM
I can also see from the traffic on the Thruway it's it's obviously not a negligible movement, at least on tourist weekends. ... There are a TON of PA plates west of Syracuse, nearly none east, and I doubt they're all coming from Erie to go vacation in Syracuse after the long weekend is over.
Yeah, there's a very significant increase in traffic west of Exit 39, and it's not all coming to/from Syracuse. This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9733207,-77.1299441,3a,30y,92h,89.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRCMS-2nzaRO-JHk2zXIDfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) certainly wouldn't exist if it was a negligible movement.
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2021, 08:19:42 AM
In this particular case, we talk about loss for those who travel long haul through Syracuse compared to those who would lose if the highway is rebuilt. And from that perspective, the number of those in transit is important as their combined loss (5 miles/5 minutes per vehicle, right?) has to be weighed against the expected win for the city.
Quote from: webny99 on June 03, 2021, 01:29:26 PMWell, for one - I lived a few years with windows facing a highly travelled 4-lane divided highway. THat wasn't fun, and I can see those within half a mile from the road to benefit just from lower noise.Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2021, 08:19:42 AM
In this particular case, we talk about loss for those who travel long haul through Syracuse compared to those who would lose if the highway is rebuilt. And from that perspective, the number of those in transit is important as their combined loss (5 miles/5 minutes per vehicle, right?) has to be weighed against the expected win for the city.
Who exactly would lose if the highway is rebuilt (besides the state, from a financial perspective)?
The expected win for the city is just that - expected. Far from certain, and certainly not universally expected. Personally, I don't really see any benefits to the removal aside from the cost savings. It remains to be seen whether the supposed better connectivity will actually materialize, and even then, it's not exactly the type of dense residential/small commericial area that would benefit most from a more walkable road network.
Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2021, 11:06:33 PMRight because cheaper equates to better. That's what the US is known for, building cheap infrastructure and small ambitions.
$300m is the cost of a major project. It is little wonder NYSDOT went with the cheaper option, especially when the LOS projections were deemed acceptable.
But, let us continue to bemoan the decision.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 04, 2021, 12:45:31 AMLike I said, carry on.Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2021, 11:06:33 PMRight because cheaper equates to better. That's what the US is known for, building cheap infrastructure and small ambitions.
$300m is the cost of a major project. It is little wonder NYSDOT went with the cheaper option, especially when the LOS projections were deemed acceptable.
But, let us continue to bemoan the decision.
Quote from: yakra on June 04, 2021, 01:19:36 AMHa!
double deck that shi'
*runs*
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 04, 2021, 12:45:31 AMAlso for brute forcing dumb ideas.Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2021, 11:06:33 PMRight because cheaper equates to better. That's what the US is known for, building cheap infrastructure and small ambitions.
$300m is the cost of a major project. It is little wonder NYSDOT went with the cheaper option, especially when the LOS projections were deemed acceptable.
But, let us continue to bemoan the decision.
Quote from: machias on June 04, 2021, 08:47:52 PM
After a few dozen folks die in ambulances because they can't get to the hospital as they traverse the community grid, or pedestrians trying to cross a six lane boulevard get hit, or game attendance at the Carrier Dome goes down because it takes four hours to get home and spectators lose interest, they'll realize the community grid probably wasn't the best decision for the area.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 07, 2021, 06:50:26 PMThe way Buttigieg praised highway removal two weeks ago, this is a non-starter.
It looks like a new Skyway Option is presented:
https://www.localsyr.com/news/future-of-81/representatives-from-salina-syracuse-unveil-grid-skyway-proposal-for-i-81/?fbclid=IwAR1okmvBqdcgs0wYYnhkNaOA4j41KwhcCKEfCotN-zBMj2TUHoSPEAkn__o
Quoteyou can certainly think of this as restorative or reparative
Quote from: kalvado on July 07, 2021, 07:58:59 PMIt almost makes me sympathetic to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer for standing in the way of this, if the ad I saw on TV this afternoon is to be believed.
The way Buttigieg praised highway removal two weeks ago, this is a non-starter.
While Secretary didn't focus on minor details, like schedules and funding, he was very clear in his overall vision:Quoteyou can certainly think of this as restorative or reparative
Links:
https://www.syracuse.com/opinion/2021/07/buttigieg-visit-confirms-i-81-as-federal-priority-editorial-board-opinion.html
https://www.syracuse.com/state/2021/06/in-syracusecom-interview-buttigieg-discusses-race-reparations-and-i-81-video.html
https://www.syracuse.com/news/2021/06/pete-buttigieg-in-syracuse-i-81-construction-jobs-will-go-to-local-residents.html
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 07, 2021, 06:50:26 PMPfft. Community Grid is hurtling towards ROD as is.
It looks like a new Skyway Option is presented:
https://www.localsyr.com/news/future-of-81/representatives-from-salina-syracuse-unveil-grid-skyway-proposal-for-i-81/?fbclid=IwAR1okmvBqdcgs0wYYnhkNaOA4j41KwhcCKEfCotN-zBMj2TUHoSPEAkn__o
Quote from: seicer on July 07, 2021, 10:31:55 PMWhile "expensive" is certainly a very valid argument of a show-stopper grade, I don't see why "who don't live in Syracuse" deserve even a mention.
I'm pretty certain that a "skyway" option was presented before and dismissed as too expensive. Sure, you can have a "community grid" underneath it, but it didn't meet all of the objectives of the project and/or cost.
Note that the "skyway" was proposed by people who don't live in Syracuse.
Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 06:49:58 AM
To be fair, I don't think there's any consensus amongst the public in Syracuse regarding what they want done. The angry are determined to stay angry at this point, no matter what their position is.
Quote from: froggie on July 08, 2021, 09:34:20 AMUnlike many political issues, where some middle ground could - and should - be found, Syracuse is pretty much "A or B" type of question. Either there is a highway, or there is no highway, few options in between.Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 06:49:58 AM
To be fair, I don't think there's any consensus amongst the public in Syracuse regarding what they want done. The angry are determined to stay angry at this point, no matter what their position is.
Much like politics in general in this nation.
Regarding this Grid + Skyway proposal, I fail to see how it's any different than the "Viaduct Replacement" option...
Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 10:26:25 AMOr they will drag the project long enough for administration and priorities to change, another study of environmental effects of the previous study will be ordered, and viaduct will stay another few
The thing is that there is no question or real debate any longer. The grid will be implemented. The people that want to replace the viaduct will voice their comments at the scheduled hearing(s), they will be responded to in a way that will meet FHWA's requirements and the grid will move forward.
Quote from: kalvado on July 08, 2021, 10:39:18 AMAt this point, I don't think so -- at least in terms of getting to the ROD. Now, after that point is a different matter, given the complexities of the work being done and both state and consultant forces crying that they're overstretched as is.Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 10:26:25 AMOr they will drag the project long enough for administration and priorities to change, another study of environmental effects of the previous study will be ordered, and viaduct will stay another few
The thing is that there is no question or real debate any longer. The grid will be implemented. The people that want to replace the viaduct will voice their comments at the scheduled hearing(s), they will be responded to in a way that will meet FHWA's requirements and the grid will move forward.yearsdecades until it collapses. [ /cynical]
Quote from: froggie on July 08, 2021, 09:34:20 AMIt's higher in the air, which supposedly makes it less of a barrier. Of course, that also increases the cost and makes connecting to I-690 more interesting.Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 06:49:58 AM
To be fair, I don't think there's any consensus amongst the public in Syracuse regarding what they want done. The angry are determined to stay angry at this point, no matter what their position is.
Much like politics in general in this nation.
Regarding this Grid + Skyway proposal, I fail to see how it's any different than the "Viaduct Replacement" option...
Quote from: kalvado on July 08, 2021, 10:39:18 AMI hope so. If the tunnel can't be build the skyway is a great alternative to the viaduct.Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 10:26:25 AMOr they will drag the project long enough for administration and priorities to change, another study of environmental effects of the previous study will be ordered, and viaduct will stay another few
The thing is that there is no question or real debate any longer. The grid will be implemented. The people that want to replace the viaduct will voice their comments at the scheduled hearing(s), they will be responded to in a way that will meet FHWA's requirements and the grid will move forward.yearsdecades until it collapses. [ /cynical]
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 08, 2021, 03:23:47 PMDream: a cool new structure built after collapseQuote from: kalvado on July 08, 2021, 10:39:18 AMI hope so. If the tunnel can't be build the skyway is a great alternative to the viaduct.Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 10:26:25 AMOr they will drag the project long enough for administration and priorities to change, another study of environmental effects of the previous study will be ordered, and viaduct will stay another few
The thing is that there is no question or real debate any longer. The grid will be implemented. The people that want to replace the viaduct will voice their comments at the scheduled hearing(s), they will be responded to in a way that will meet FHWA's requirements and the grid will move forward.yearsdecades until it collapses. [ /cynical]
Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 01:03:34 PMWell out of the way on a local scale. I-690 is slightly faster unless there's congestion, and doesn't have the "3 extra toll charges per direction because the Thruway bills AET in the stupidest way possible" problem, but is still well out of the way on a local scale (arguably even more so, because the extra distance is the same but the total distance is less). If you were talking about the northern movement, why should I have to go out of my way to stay on the interstate system because someone thought a green shield would appease Pyramid when it absolutely won't? Plus it's confusing since upstate NY uses "route" for everything, and now you'll have two roads signed "route 81".
Just take I-481 to the Thruway. I mean, I am probably for rebuilding the viaduct when it comes down to it, but given realities about the grid, the minutes longer it will take makes it the best option.
Quote from: vdeane on July 08, 2021, 10:14:17 PMWell, fine. Drive through the city with it's ill-timed lights and awkward on-ramp placement. :D
I just really, really hope they don't actually do "business loop I-81" and made the remaining freeway a 3di. The business loop idea is quite honestly the part of the plan I hate the most.Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 01:03:34 PMWell out of the way on a local scale. I-690 is slightly faster unless there's congestion, and doesn't have the "3 extra toll charges per direction because the Thruway bills AET in the stupidest way possible" problem, but is still well out of the way on a local scale (arguably even more so, because the extra distance is the same but the total distance is less). If you were talking about the northern movement, why should I have to go out of my way to stay on the interstate system because someone thought a green shield would appease Pyramid when it absolutely won't? Plus it's confusing since upstate NY uses "route" for everything, and now you'll have two roads signed "route 81".
Just take I-481 to the Thruway. I mean, I am probably for rebuilding the viaduct when it comes down to it, but given realities about the grid, the minutes longer it will take makes it the best option.
Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 11:30:24 PMWhere did I say that? Or is it now planned to remove more of I-81 than in the last plan that was publicly revealed? Last I checked, everything north of I-690 was supposed to remain exactly as it is now (with the exception of the I-481/NY 481 interchange changes), just with green shields and new exit numbers/mile markers. Is that no longer the case?Quote from: vdeane on July 08, 2021, 10:14:17 PMWell, fine. Drive through the city with it's ill-timed lights and awkward on-ramp placement. :D
I just really, really hope they don't actually do "business loop I-81" and made the remaining freeway a 3di. The business loop idea is quite honestly the part of the plan I hate the most.Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 01:03:34 PMWell out of the way on a local scale. I-690 is slightly faster unless there's congestion, and doesn't have the "3 extra toll charges per direction because the Thruway bills AET in the stupidest way possible" problem, but is still well out of the way on a local scale (arguably even more so, because the extra distance is the same but the total distance is less). If you were talking about the northern movement, why should I have to go out of my way to stay on the interstate system because someone thought a green shield would appease Pyramid when it absolutely won't? Plus it's confusing since upstate NY uses "route" for everything, and now you'll have two roads signed "route 81".
Just take I-481 to the Thruway. I mean, I am probably for rebuilding the viaduct when it comes down to it, but given realities about the grid, the minutes longer it will take makes it the best option.
Quote from: vdeane on July 09, 2021, 01:12:24 PMI'm afraid people don't really care about the shields too much. 3DI may make some sense - but who really cares?
No thoughts on my business loop I-81 vs. 3di and state route extension issue?
Quote from: vdeane on July 09, 2021, 01:12:24 PMIt's going to be BL-81.Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 11:30:24 PMWhere did I say that? Or is it now planned to remove more of I-81 than in the last plan that was publicly revealed? Last I checked, everything north of I-690 was supposed to remain exactly as it is now (with the exception of the I-481/NY 481 interchange changes), just with green shields and new exit numbers/mile markers. Is that no longer the case?Quote from: vdeane on July 08, 2021, 10:14:17 PMWell, fine. Drive through the city with it's ill-timed lights and awkward on-ramp placement. :D
I just really, really hope they don't actually do "business loop I-81" and made the remaining freeway a 3di. The business loop idea is quite honestly the part of the plan I hate the most.Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 01:03:34 PMWell out of the way on a local scale. I-690 is slightly faster unless there's congestion, and doesn't have the "3 extra toll charges per direction because the Thruway bills AET in the stupidest way possible" problem, but is still well out of the way on a local scale (arguably even more so, because the extra distance is the same but the total distance is less). If you were talking about the northern movement, why should I have to go out of my way to stay on the interstate system because someone thought a green shield would appease Pyramid when it absolutely won't? Plus it's confusing since upstate NY uses "route" for everything, and now you'll have two roads signed "route 81".
Just take I-481 to the Thruway. I mean, I am probably for rebuilding the viaduct when it comes down to it, but given realities about the grid, the minutes longer it will take makes it the best option.
For going south, Google does indeed list I-690 as faster than the Thruway (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.1066114,-76.2894257/43.046757,-76.0513978/@43.0751123,-76.2482385,11.21z), just by not much.
No thoughts on my business loop I-81 vs. 3di and state route extension issue?
Quote from: kalvado on July 09, 2021, 02:15:32 PMNorth Carolina and South Carolina have a handful of interstate business routes as well.Quote from: vdeane on July 09, 2021, 01:12:24 PMI'm afraid people don't really care about the shields too much. 3DI may make some sense - but who really cares?
No thoughts on my business loop I-81 vs. 3di and state route extension issue?
I only wonder why business loop was brought up as an option to begin with. Someone from west coast in NYSDOT leadership?
Quote from: Rothman on July 09, 2021, 02:30:14 PMQuote from: vdeane on July 09, 2021, 01:12:24 PMIt's going to be BL-81.Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 11:30:24 PMWhere did I say that? Or is it now planned to remove more of I-81 than in the last plan that was publicly revealed? Last I checked, everything north of I-690 was supposed to remain exactly as it is now (with the exception of the I-481/NY 481 interchange changes), just with green shields and new exit numbers/mile markers. Is that no longer the case?Quote from: vdeane on July 08, 2021, 10:14:17 PMWell, fine. Drive through the city with it's ill-timed lights and awkward on-ramp placement. :D
I just really, really hope they don't actually do "business loop I-81" and made the remaining freeway a 3di. The business loop idea is quite honestly the part of the plan I hate the most.Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 01:03:34 PMWell out of the way on a local scale. I-690 is slightly faster unless there's congestion, and doesn't have the "3 extra toll charges per direction because the Thruway bills AET in the stupidest way possible" problem, but is still well out of the way on a local scale (arguably even more so, because the extra distance is the same but the total distance is less). If you were talking about the northern movement, why should I have to go out of my way to stay on the interstate system because someone thought a green shield would appease Pyramid when it absolutely won't? Plus it's confusing since upstate NY uses "route" for everything, and now you'll have two roads signed "route 81".
Just take I-481 to the Thruway. I mean, I am probably for rebuilding the viaduct when it comes down to it, but given realities about the grid, the minutes longer it will take makes it the best option.
For going south, Google does indeed list I-690 as faster than the Thruway (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.1066114,-76.2894257/43.046757,-76.0513978/@43.0751123,-76.2482385,11.21z), just by not much.
No thoughts on my business loop I-81 vs. 3di and state route extension issue?
Quote from: sparker on July 09, 2021, 05:44:58 PMQuote from: Rothman on July 09, 2021, 02:30:14 PMQuote from: vdeane on July 09, 2021, 01:12:24 PMIt's going to be BL-81.Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 11:30:24 PMWhere did I say that? Or is it now planned to remove more of I-81 than in the last plan that was publicly revealed? Last I checked, everything north of I-690 was supposed to remain exactly as it is now (with the exception of the I-481/NY 481 interchange changes), just with green shields and new exit numbers/mile markers. Is that no longer the case?Quote from: vdeane on July 08, 2021, 10:14:17 PMWell, fine. Drive through the city with it's ill-timed lights and awkward on-ramp placement. :D
I just really, really hope they don't actually do "business loop I-81" and made the remaining freeway a 3di. The business loop idea is quite honestly the part of the plan I hate the most.Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 01:03:34 PMWell out of the way on a local scale. I-690 is slightly faster unless there's congestion, and doesn't have the "3 extra toll charges per direction because the Thruway bills AET in the stupidest way possible" problem, but is still well out of the way on a local scale (arguably even more so, because the extra distance is the same but the total distance is less). If you were talking about the northern movement, why should I have to go out of my way to stay on the interstate system because someone thought a green shield would appease Pyramid when it absolutely won't? Plus it's confusing since upstate NY uses "route" for everything, and now you'll have two roads signed "route 81".
Just take I-481 to the Thruway. I mean, I am probably for rebuilding the viaduct when it comes down to it, but given realities about the grid, the minutes longer it will take makes it the best option.
For going south, Google does indeed list I-690 as faster than the Thruway (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.1066114,-76.2894257/43.046757,-76.0513978/@43.0751123,-76.2482385,11.21z), just by not much.
No thoughts on my business loop I-81 vs. 3di and state route extension issue?
Then there are a bunch of FM's embedded in the decision-making process. BTW, "M" means morons, the "F" can be freely interpolated (hint: it's a gerund)! Nevertheless, if the grid decision is nailed down, the main thing, besides designation of the inner-city remnants, is to revise the north 81/481 interchange to expedite the main traffic movement on the rerouted I-81; leaving it on a low-speed cloverleaf would be an equally deplorable decision.
Quote from: kalvado on July 09, 2021, 02:15:32 PMMy understanding is that it was an attempt to appease Pyramid (DestiNY USA) and the hotels in Salina - "see, you'll still have route 81, the shields will just be green instead of blue!". Except they're still as upset as ever.Quote from: vdeane on July 09, 2021, 01:12:24 PMI'm afraid people don't really care about the shields too much. 3DI may make some sense - but who really cares?
No thoughts on my business loop I-81 vs. 3di and state route extension issue?
I only wonder why business loop was brought up as an option to begin with. Someone from west coast in NYSDOT leadership?
Quote from: sparker on July 09, 2021, 05:44:58 PMSee page 64:Quote from: Rothman on July 09, 2021, 02:30:14 PMQuote from: vdeane on July 09, 2021, 01:12:24 PMIt's going to be BL-81.Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 11:30:24 PMWhere did I say that? Or is it now planned to remove more of I-81 than in the last plan that was publicly revealed? Last I checked, everything north of I-690 was supposed to remain exactly as it is now (with the exception of the I-481/NY 481 interchange changes), just with green shields and new exit numbers/mile markers. Is that no longer the case?Quote from: vdeane on July 08, 2021, 10:14:17 PMWell, fine. Drive through the city with it's ill-timed lights and awkward on-ramp placement. :D
I just really, really hope they don't actually do "business loop I-81" and made the remaining freeway a 3di. The business loop idea is quite honestly the part of the plan I hate the most.Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 01:03:34 PMWell out of the way on a local scale. I-690 is slightly faster unless there's congestion, and doesn't have the "3 extra toll charges per direction because the Thruway bills AET in the stupidest way possible" problem, but is still well out of the way on a local scale (arguably even more so, because the extra distance is the same but the total distance is less). If you were talking about the northern movement, why should I have to go out of my way to stay on the interstate system because someone thought a green shield would appease Pyramid when it absolutely won't? Plus it's confusing since upstate NY uses "route" for everything, and now you'll have two roads signed "route 81".
Just take I-481 to the Thruway. I mean, I am probably for rebuilding the viaduct when it comes down to it, but given realities about the grid, the minutes longer it will take makes it the best option.
For going south, Google does indeed list I-690 as faster than the Thruway (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.1066114,-76.2894257/43.046757,-76.0513978/@43.0751123,-76.2482385,11.21z), just by not much.
No thoughts on my business loop I-81 vs. 3di and state route extension issue?
Then there are a bunch of FM's embedded in the decision-making process. BTW, "M" means morons, the "F" can be freely interpolated (hint: it's a gerund)! Nevertheless, if the grid decision is nailed down, the main thing, besides designation of the inner-city remnants, is to revise the north 81/481 interchange to expedite the main traffic movement on the rerouted I-81; leaving it on a low-speed cloverleaf would be an equally deplorable decision.
Quote from: machias on July 09, 2021, 08:08:07 PMThe mile-based numbers are the ONE silver lining on a project that seems to get worse with each new iteration of the plan. I think it's safe to say that I'm opposed to anything that takes the I-690-I-481/NY 481 portion of the route out of the interstate system. Why should traffic from Rochester to Watertown/Canada have to leave the interstate system to get between I-90 and I-81? That route will be an integral route for thru traffic, no matter what the business loop proponents may say. Its status in the system should reflect that.Quote from: sparker on July 09, 2021, 05:44:58 PMQuote from: Rothman on July 09, 2021, 02:30:14 PMQuote from: vdeane on July 09, 2021, 01:12:24 PMIt's going to be BL-81.Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 11:30:24 PMWhere did I say that? Or is it now planned to remove more of I-81 than in the last plan that was publicly revealed? Last I checked, everything north of I-690 was supposed to remain exactly as it is now (with the exception of the I-481/NY 481 interchange changes), just with green shields and new exit numbers/mile markers. Is that no longer the case?Quote from: vdeane on July 08, 2021, 10:14:17 PMWell, fine. Drive through the city with it's ill-timed lights and awkward on-ramp placement. :D
I just really, really hope they don't actually do "business loop I-81" and made the remaining freeway a 3di. The business loop idea is quite honestly the part of the plan I hate the most.Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 01:03:34 PMWell out of the way on a local scale. I-690 is slightly faster unless there's congestion, and doesn't have the "3 extra toll charges per direction because the Thruway bills AET in the stupidest way possible" problem, but is still well out of the way on a local scale (arguably even more so, because the extra distance is the same but the total distance is less). If you were talking about the northern movement, why should I have to go out of my way to stay on the interstate system because someone thought a green shield would appease Pyramid when it absolutely won't? Plus it's confusing since upstate NY uses "route" for everything, and now you'll have two roads signed "route 81".
Just take I-481 to the Thruway. I mean, I am probably for rebuilding the viaduct when it comes down to it, but given realities about the grid, the minutes longer it will take makes it the best option.
For going south, Google does indeed list I-690 as faster than the Thruway (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.1066114,-76.2894257/43.046757,-76.0513978/@43.0751123,-76.2482385,11.21z), just by not much.
No thoughts on my business loop I-81 vs. 3di and state route extension issue?
Then there are a bunch of FM's embedded in the decision-making process. BTW, "M" means morons, the "F" can be freely interpolated (hint: it's a gerund)! Nevertheless, if the grid decision is nailed down, the main thing, besides designation of the inner-city remnants, is to revise the north 81/481 interchange to expedite the main traffic movement on the rerouted I-81; leaving it on a low-speed cloverleaf would be an equally deplorable decision.
I wouldn't mind NY 581 from the northern I-81/I-481 junction to I-690 downtown. Since Syracuse doesn't want an interstate going through the city, I don't think it should be I-581, but NY 581 would be appropriate. The BL-81 markers will also do the trick, though NYers aren't used to the green shields and as others have said, it'll just be "Route 81", which could be confusing for many.
The bright spot of all this is this grid plan (though my opinion has no relevance, I think it's a dumb idea) is that I-81 will now get distance based interchange numbers from Binghamton to the Canadian border.
That'll make the everyone in the state love the idea even more. /s
Quote from: Rothman on July 09, 2021, 02:30:14 PMNo chance that they'll walk it back and pick something more sensible? That sucks. One thing I've always loved about upstate NY is the great interstate system connectivity, but it seems like they're determined to throw that away. Soon Albany will be the only place other than NYC that still has it (not that Rochester was great in that respect before, but at least it used to be solely PA's fault).Quote from: vdeane on July 09, 2021, 01:12:24 PMIt's going to be BL-81.Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 11:30:24 PMWhere did I say that? Or is it now planned to remove more of I-81 than in the last plan that was publicly revealed? Last I checked, everything north of I-690 was supposed to remain exactly as it is now (with the exception of the I-481/NY 481 interchange changes), just with green shields and new exit numbers/mile markers. Is that no longer the case?Quote from: vdeane on July 08, 2021, 10:14:17 PMWell, fine. Drive through the city with it's ill-timed lights and awkward on-ramp placement. :D
I just really, really hope they don't actually do "business loop I-81" and made the remaining freeway a 3di. The business loop idea is quite honestly the part of the plan I hate the most.Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 01:03:34 PMWell out of the way on a local scale. I-690 is slightly faster unless there's congestion, and doesn't have the "3 extra toll charges per direction because the Thruway bills AET in the stupidest way possible" problem, but is still well out of the way on a local scale (arguably even more so, because the extra distance is the same but the total distance is less). If you were talking about the northern movement, why should I have to go out of my way to stay on the interstate system because someone thought a green shield would appease Pyramid when it absolutely won't? Plus it's confusing since upstate NY uses "route" for everything, and now you'll have two roads signed "route 81".
Just take I-481 to the Thruway. I mean, I am probably for rebuilding the viaduct when it comes down to it, but given realities about the grid, the minutes longer it will take makes it the best option.
For going south, Google does indeed list I-690 as faster than the Thruway (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.1066114,-76.2894257/43.046757,-76.0513978/@43.0751123,-76.2482385,11.21z), just by not much.
No thoughts on my business loop I-81 vs. 3di and state route extension issue?
Quote from: Rothman on July 09, 2021, 10:58:08 PM
A lot of prep work on I-481 will happen as phase 1 of the project. I-690's off and on ramps are going to be reconfigured. Bridges over I-690 are going to be replaced. It's going to be a while before the viaduct actually comes down.
In terms of "interstate connectivity," BL-81 will be the same facility it is now and I would doubt it would lose its 90% NHPP eligibility. Green shield or blue shield...just doesn't matter.
Quote from: Rothman on July 09, 2021, 10:58:08 PMBut the green shields aren't interstates (https://travelmapping.net/user/system.php?u=vdeane&sys=usai). It may still be an all-freeway route, but you can't call it an all-interstate route. Go take a look at Spartanburg on FHWA's map (https://hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/fhwagis/) and see what business loop 85 isn't recognized as. If it's not signed with the red, which, and blue shield, recognized by FHWA, or in usai on TM, it's not an interstate. Period.
A lot of prep work on I-481 will happen as phase 1 of the project. I-690's off and on ramps are going to be reconfigured. Bridges over I-690 are going to be replaced. It's going to be a while before the viaduct actually comes down.
In terms of "interstate connectivity," BL-81 will be the same facility it is now and I would doubt it would lose its 90% NHPP eligibility. Green shield or blue shield...just doesn't matter.
Quote from: amroad17 on July 11, 2021, 07:22:24 AMThat it does. That said, I won't be involved in such and effort - I try to avoid political lobbying with respect to transportation for ethics reasons. As such, it would be a project for other forum members.
Maybe someone should get in touch with the congressional representative for the Syracuse area and have them attempt to make a law for the section of I-81 north of I-690 be re-designated as I-681 and the section of I-81 from I-481 south of the city to wherever it may end in the city be NY 681. It seems to work in other areas of the USA. ;-)
Quote from: Rothman on July 11, 2021, 08:31:00 AMI don't understand why this element seems to be so set in stone. It was an attempt to appease Pyramid and the hotels, it failed, so why not go back to more conventional options that don't include deleting the remaining freeway from the interstate system? Honestly, I could live with the community grid if it weren't for that one element of the plan. I wouldn't really be happy about it (especially as the other silver lining, the I-690 east to existing I-81 north and existing I-81 south to I-690 west ramps being built, was removed from the project), but I could at least live with it. Except for this one thing.
BL-81 will just be one of those elements of the system that will cause grief for some roadgeeks for years to come.
QuoteAnd why does it seems like the decision makers in transportation are making decisions that roadgeeks grumble about more and more often?
Quote from: froggie on July 12, 2021, 01:03:28 AMQuoteAnd why does it seems like the decision makers in transportation are making decisions that roadgeeks grumble about more and more often?
To put it somewhat bluntly, this is because the general traveling public is far less OCD about road-type stuff than roadgeeks are. And it should be noted that not all roadgeeks are grumbling about these decisions/changes you refer to.
Quote from: froggie on July 12, 2021, 01:03:28 AMThat's always been the case, though, and yet 15 years ago I feel like there wasn't nearly as much to complain about. Mainly I-238, I-99, and maybe I-73/74. Plus you'd think the people at DOTs would care at least somewhat (says the person who knows better than most that most DOT employees aren't roadgeeks either).QuoteAnd why does it seems like the decision makers in transportation are making decisions that roadgeeks grumble about more and more often?
To put it somewhat bluntly, this is because the general traveling public is far less OCD about road-type stuff than roadgeeks are. And it should be noted that not all roadgeeks are grumbling about these decisions/changes you refer to.
Quote from: vdeane on July 11, 2021, 05:06:08 PM
And why does it seems like the decision makers in transportation are making decisions that roadgeeks grumble about more and more often?
Quote from: Rothman on July 12, 2021, 07:05:33 AM
DOTs becoming multimodal has nothing to do with the BL-81 designation. The other modes at NYSDOT receive a tiny fraction of resources compared to the highways, roads and bridges of the capital program. Suggesting that the other modes are sucking away at the highway program to have the effect suggested is simply unfounded if you really know how NYSDOT operates.
In terms of a lack of resources leading to decisions like BL-81, that also seems unfounded to me. Cost was definitely the main factor in deciding on ripping down the viaduct (determined at much higher levels than within NYSDOT), but the BL-81 decision was considered very minor compared to the actual work needing to be done (e.g., I-481 improvements, the downtown bridge replacements, improvements to the surface streets...heck, even a couple of the preparatory roundabout projects in the outer reaches that have already started design). In other words, even if the grid option was chosen for other reasons besides cost, designation of the old pieces of I-81 as whatever route would still be considered the least of the worries given the size of the project.
Quote from: Rothman on July 12, 2021, 10:34:51 PM
This isn't rocket science, but you're right about designation being considered not very important. As has been said many times before, the travelling public mostly won't care. Therefore, the thought put into the decision matched the level of impact.
Quote from: seicer on July 13, 2021, 08:44:57 AMIf you think about it, @vdeane is a member of the local public, who actually uses the road. She may be among the tiny minority who cares, but you cannot dismiss her comments on that basis.
I can't find a single comment from a vested party (by the public to NYSDOT) that is concerned about route numbering.
Quote from: Rothman on July 13, 2021, 06:54:10 AM
Those who are angry about the designation have so far failed to demonstrate that the BL-81 shields are going to be detrimental to the travelling public.
Quote from: US 89 on July 13, 2021, 11:19:30 AMQuote from: Rothman on July 13, 2021, 06:54:10 AM
Those who are angry about the designation have so far failed to demonstrate that the BL-81 shields are going to be detrimental to the travelling public.
Personally I do think designating the old route as Business 81 has the potential to confuse the few westerners traveling through the area who are unfamiliar with business loops being used this way (as they are in Spartanburg, Greensboro etc). To the average driver who spends most of their time in the western half of the US, "business route" means "that road that goes through town that has gas stations and restaurants and historic downtown areas along it". That is obviously not what BL-81 is going to be.
But since NY currently has zero interstate business routes, this is probably not going to be an issue for most in-state drivers. And in the long run it likely won't really matter because the business loop will go the same place mainline 81 does in probably close to the same amount of time.
Quote from: Rothman on July 13, 2021, 06:54:10 AMI would think having two "route 81s" in the same place would be confusing. Sure, number duplication exists in NY, but not that close together outside of I-90 and NY 90, and that's different not only because there's no interchange, but I-90 is just "the Thruway". Even here in the Capital District where people will refer to routes as interstates, that doesn't mean they're actually referring to the road correctly - I've heard Cohoes Boulevard called "interstate 787" many times even though it's never been a part of the interstate system and has traffic lights.
Well, like I said, when the impact upon the public is minimal, then the care given the decision is going to match it.
Those who are angry about the designation have so far failed to demonstrate that the BL-81 shields are going to be detrimental to the travelling public.
Certainly, north to west or east to south traffic is affected by the removal of the viaduct. However, whether the route through the city is marked with green shields or various red-white-and-blue shields -- the importance and significance of that difference is pretty low. People and mapping services will just care where the remaining highway portions are, how to navigate the surface streets or just bypassing on I-81.
Quote from: amroad17 on July 11, 2021, 07:22:24 AM
Maybe someone should get in touch with the congressional representative for the Syracuse area and have them attempt to make a law for the section of I-81 north of I-690 be re-designated as I-681 and the section of I-81 from I-481 south of the city to wherever it may end in the city be NY 681. It seems to work in other areas of the USA. ;-)
Another option could be the use of the "dreaded" green Business Spur instead of Business Loop for the section south of I-690, while pushing for I-681 north of I-690. Or, maybe US 11 should be re-routed onto I-81 at Exit 16 and have that be the Community Grid routing.
Just a few suggestions to keep from having an Interstate Business Loop cover the entire section of soon-to-be re-routed I-81.
Quote from: TheDon102 on July 16, 2021, 01:39:10 PM
what a disaster
Quote
Maintain or enhance vehicle access to the interstate highway network and key destinations (i.e., business districts, hospitals, and institutions) within neighborhoods within and near Downtown Syracuse.
Quote from: Rothman on July 17, 2021, 12:31:18 PM
Anyone actually going to submit their comments to NYSDOT/FHWA?
Quote
FHWA and NYSDOT considered other options for the re-designation of the other interstate segments within the project area. These included re-designation of the eastern section of I-690 (between approximately I-81 and I-481) and the I-81 north segment (between I-690 and the northern I-81/I-481 interchange) as I-481. These options were dismissed because they would have caused additional building acquisitions.
Quote from: Rothman on July 14, 2021, 10:35:53 AMHe seems to be more interested in I-81 than this comment would imply:
Katko seems more preoccupied with the southern border than I-81 currently.
Quote from: vdeane on July 22, 2021, 09:59:04 PMPfft. Had the DEIS not been released, he'd still be spamming Facebook about the southern border.
So for anyone interested in commenting on anything, this article (https://www.syracuse.com/state/2021/07/i-81-project-in-syracuse-see-the-entire-2-billion-proposal-with-maps-data-and-more.html) has information about where to submit comments. The same site also has some information on when different parts of the project will be done (https://www.syracuse.com/news/2021/07/i-81-construction-begins-next-year-but-the-hulking-highway-wont-come-down-for-years.html). NYSDOT also posted a video with renderings of the business loop:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slIsfAMO-Gg
All this reminded me to actually take a deeper look at the draft EIS, which I had been meaning to do but was busy with the Wilmington meet (and then forgot). I found a couple interesting this. First, would be this quote on page 67 (3-32) of the alternatives chapter (https://parsonsecmpublic.s3.amazonaws.com/I-81-DEIS/07-2021/03%20Alternatives_July%202021.pdf):Quote
FHWA and NYSDOT considered other options for the re-designation of the other interstate segments within the project area. These included re-designation of the eastern section of I-690 (between approximately I-81 and I-481) and the I-81 north segment (between I-690 and the northern I-81/I-481 interchange) as I-481. These options were dismissed because they would have caused additional building acquisitions.Quote from: Rothman on July 14, 2021, 10:35:53 AMHe seems to be more interested in I-81 than this comment would imply:
Katko seems more preoccupied with the southern border than I-81 currently.
https://www.waer.org/news/2021-07-22/rep-katko-encourages-constituents-to-take-advantage-of-i-81-public-comment-period
Quote from: cl94 on July 22, 2021, 11:18:25 PMAnti-relocation?
I just want to see how long the court battles are going to be dragged out. I fully expect it will be a while given the amount of money anti-relocation people have in their pockets.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 23, 2021, 09:14:15 AMWell, yes...hence the lengthy discussion in the thread.
so they're going with removal and rerouting onto 481?
Quote from: Rothman on July 23, 2021, 12:05:34 AMLooks like someone is trying really hard to dissuade amroad17, ixnay, and any others from contacting Katko about this without outright saying so. Gee, I wonder why... perhaps BL 81 was your pet idea and you're afraid that there's even a slight chance that Congress could take that away from you?Quote from: vdeane on July 22, 2021, 09:59:04 PMPfft. Had the DEIS not been released, he'd still be spamming Facebook about the southern border.
So for anyone interested in commenting on anything, this article (https://www.syracuse.com/state/2021/07/i-81-project-in-syracuse-see-the-entire-2-billion-proposal-with-maps-data-and-more.html) has information about where to submit comments. The same site also has some information on when different parts of the project will be done (https://www.syracuse.com/news/2021/07/i-81-construction-begins-next-year-but-the-hulking-highway-wont-come-down-for-years.html). NYSDOT also posted a video with renderings of the business loop:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slIsfAMO-Gg
All this reminded me to actually take a deeper look at the draft EIS, which I had been meaning to do but was busy with the Wilmington meet (and then forgot). I found a couple interesting this. First, would be this quote on page 67 (3-32) of the alternatives chapter (https://parsonsecmpublic.s3.amazonaws.com/I-81-DEIS/07-2021/03%20Alternatives_July%202021.pdf):Quote
FHWA and NYSDOT considered other options for the re-designation of the other interstate segments within the project area. These included re-designation of the eastern section of I-690 (between approximately I-81 and I-481) and the I-81 north segment (between I-690 and the northern I-81/I-481 interchange) as I-481. These options were dismissed because they would have caused additional building acquisitions.Quote from: Rothman on July 14, 2021, 10:35:53 AMHe seems to be more interested in I-81 than this comment would imply:
Katko seems more preoccupied with the southern border than I-81 currently.
https://www.waer.org/news/2021-07-22/rep-katko-encourages-constituents-to-take-advantage-of-i-81-public-comment-period
Quote from: vdeane on July 23, 2021, 04:01:03 PMQuote from: Rothman on July 23, 2021, 12:05:34 AMLooks like someone is trying really hard to dissuade amroad17, ixnay, and any others from contacting Katko about this without outright saying so. Gee, I wonder why... perhaps BL 81 was your pet idea and you're afraid that there's even a slight chance that Congress could take that away from you?Quote from: vdeane on July 22, 2021, 09:59:04 PMPfft. Had the DEIS not been released, he'd still be spamming Facebook about the southern border.
So for anyone interested in commenting on anything, this article (https://www.syracuse.com/state/2021/07/i-81-project-in-syracuse-see-the-entire-2-billion-proposal-with-maps-data-and-more.html) has information about where to submit comments. The same site also has some information on when different parts of the project will be done (https://www.syracuse.com/news/2021/07/i-81-construction-begins-next-year-but-the-hulking-highway-wont-come-down-for-years.html). NYSDOT also posted a video with renderings of the business loop:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slIsfAMO-Gg
All this reminded me to actually take a deeper look at the draft EIS, which I had been meaning to do but was busy with the Wilmington meet (and then forgot). I found a couple interesting this. First, would be this quote on page 67 (3-32) of the alternatives chapter (https://parsonsecmpublic.s3.amazonaws.com/I-81-DEIS/07-2021/03%20Alternatives_July%202021.pdf):Quote
FHWA and NYSDOT considered other options for the re-designation of the other interstate segments within the project area. These included re-designation of the eastern section of I-690 (between approximately I-81 and I-481) and the I-81 north segment (between I-690 and the northern I-81/I-481 interchange) as I-481. These options were dismissed because they would have caused additional building acquisitions.Quote from: Rothman on July 14, 2021, 10:35:53 AMHe seems to be more interested in I-81 than this comment would imply:
Katko seems more preoccupied with the southern border than I-81 currently.
https://www.waer.org/news/2021-07-22/rep-katko-encourages-constituents-to-take-advantage-of-i-81-public-comment-period
(seriously, I'm ~66% sure that BL 81 is your idea given your title and that I'm not sure how else Region 3 would have even known interstate business routes exist, unless FHWA suggested it when it was decided to not build the two missing ramps)
For what it's worth, I explained how things would be designated to Mom and she said it was confusing.
Quote from: sparker on July 23, 2021, 05:48:46 PMNo, I've heard about the partial interchange thing straight from FHWA (not regarding I-81, but in one of the trainings they periodically held prior to COVID). Think of it as yet another facet of interstate standards that wasn't much of a thing when the system was first built but has become more strictly enforced over the years (largely due to the issues partial interchanges have caused, especially when an interchange was built as a partial because the missing movements were intended to be handled by a facility that was ultimately never built).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Maybe FHWA has recently got a bug up their ass about lack of connections between intersecting Interstates, but out here in CA we have several of these (such as 5/710 in L.A. and all 3 corners of the "Tracy Triangle"), so that particular aversion sounds more like an excuse for suboptimal designation/signage than a rationale for such. Perhaps some one in NYSDOT made an assumption rather than actually determining whether a "real" 3di Interstate designation for the remainder of present I-81 would be acceptable. BTW, the concept of relocating I-481 to that section and then subsuming the east part of I-690 -- just because the existing ramps aim in that direction -- seems to be an overly complex solution to a problem that should be relatively simple. If I-481 is to be redesignated as trunk I-81, the number should be retired and a new designation applied to the northern freeway remainder as needed (why I originally suggested I-681 for that purpose) simply to avoid confusion between the "old" and "new" I-481.
And applying "green shield"/identical number business loop signage to freeway facililties was and is the dumbest idea since New Coke (funny how both germinated in the early '80's -- misguided/unimaginative minds must think alike!).
Quote from: vdeane on July 23, 2021, 09:22:58 PM
How long has BL 81 been a thing, though? I don't recall ever seeing it prior to the previous DEIS released a couple years ago. Before that, it was the boulevard version with full ramp movements and some form of interstate designation, either I-481 over I-690 and I-81 (which strikes me as needlessly complicated), or a new number with a state route extension. And before that, the viaduct was the preferred alternative. So from the public understanding at least, BL 81 hasn't been around for most of the project history.Quote from: sparker on July 23, 2021, 05:48:46 PMNo, I've heard about the partial interchange thing straight from FHWA (not regarding I-81, but in one of the trainings they periodically held prior to COVID). Think of it as yet another facet of interstate standards that wasn't much of a thing when the system was first built but has become more strictly enforced over the years (largely due to the issues partial interchanges have caused, especially when an interchange was built as a partial because the missing movements were intended to be handled by a facility that was ultimately never built).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Maybe FHWA has recently got a bug up their ass about lack of connections between intersecting Interstates, but out here in CA we have several of these (such as 5/710 in L.A. and all 3 corners of the "Tracy Triangle"), so that particular aversion sounds more like an excuse for suboptimal designation/signage than a rationale for such. Perhaps some one in NYSDOT made an assumption rather than actually determining whether a "real" 3di Interstate designation for the remainder of present I-81 would be acceptable. BTW, the concept of relocating I-481 to that section and then subsuming the east part of I-690 -- just because the existing ramps aim in that direction -- seems to be an overly complex solution to a problem that should be relatively simple. If I-481 is to be redesignated as trunk I-81, the number should be retired and a new designation applied to the northern freeway remainder as needed (why I originally suggested I-681 for that purpose) simply to avoid confusion between the "old" and "new" I-481.
And applying "green shield"/identical number business loop signage to freeway facililties was and is the dumbest idea since New Coke (funny how both germinated in the early '80's -- misguided/unimaginative minds must think alike!).
Quote from: Rothman on July 24, 2021, 12:15:37 AMFrom the way you talk, it sounds like it might have been made shortly after the boulevard concept went public. Looks like Region 3 was continuing to work on the grid even as Cuomo chased his tunnel dream.
Sure, the public hasn't seen BL-81 until more recently, but the decision was made much prior to their knowledge.
Are you not involved in project development, vdeane?
Quote from: Rothman on August 11, 2021, 10:46:52 PMI don't think anyone is going to be as bullish in the infrastructure field as Cuomo was, so why do you assert nothing will change?
Nothing will change with Hochul.
People taking the grid will also need to think in 3D as the I-690 ramps will be on Crouse and Irving, offset from Almond, on the shoulder of University Hill.
Quote from: Alps on August 11, 2021, 11:25:18 PMBecause for whatever reason he/she has made it clear they want the grid option and hope it becomes a reality. That's my guess.Quote from: Rothman on August 11, 2021, 10:46:52 PMI don't think anyone is going to be as bullish in the infrastructure field as Cuomo was, so why do you assert nothing will change?
Nothing will change with Hochul.
People taking the grid will also need to think in 3D as the I-690 ramps will be on Crouse and Irving, offset from Almond, on the shoulder of University Hill.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 11, 2021, 11:27:59 PMBecause the plan is set. Hochul won't rock the boat.Quote from: Alps on August 11, 2021, 11:25:18 PMBecause for whatever reason he/she has made it clear they want the grid option and hope it becomes a reality. That's my guess.Quote from: Rothman on August 11, 2021, 10:46:52 PMI don't think anyone is going to be as bullish in the infrastructure field as Cuomo was, so why do you assert nothing will change?
Nothing will change with Hochul.
People taking the grid will also need to think in 3D as the I-690 ramps will be on Crouse and Irving, offset from Almond, on the shoulder of University Hill.
Quote from: Rothman on August 11, 2021, 11:36:38 PMIt's a plan. Drawings on paper. The viaduct still stands and is used by thousands every day. Scrap the plan and come up with a new one because the current one sucks.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 11, 2021, 11:27:59 PMBecause the plan is set. Hochul won't rock the boat.Quote from: Alps on August 11, 2021, 11:25:18 PMBecause for whatever reason he/she has made it clear they want the grid option and hope it becomes a reality. That's my guess.Quote from: Rothman on August 11, 2021, 10:46:52 PMI don't think anyone is going to be as bullish in the infrastructure field as Cuomo was, so why do you assert nothing will change?
Nothing will change with Hochul.
People taking the grid will also need to think in 3D as the I-690 ramps will be on Crouse and Irving, offset from Almond, on the shoulder of University Hill.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 12, 2021, 05:21:27 AMYou are welcome to submit comments on the DEIS.Quote from: Rothman on August 11, 2021, 11:36:38 PMIt's a plan. Drawings on paper. The viaduct still stands and is used by thousands every day. Scrap the plan and come up with a new one because the current one sucks.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 11, 2021, 11:27:59 PMBecause the plan is set. Hochul won't rock the boat.Quote from: Alps on August 11, 2021, 11:25:18 PMBecause for whatever reason he/she has made it clear they want the grid option and hope it becomes a reality. That's my guess.Quote from: Rothman on August 11, 2021, 10:46:52 PMI don't think anyone is going to be as bullish in the infrastructure field as Cuomo was, so why do you assert nothing will change?
Nothing will change with Hochul.
People taking the grid will also need to think in 3D as the I-690 ramps will be on Crouse and Irving, offset from Almond, on the shoulder of University Hill.
Quote from: vdeane on August 12, 2021, 12:42:44 PMOne small factor maybe that Hochul got her bachelors from SU, and probably is very familiar with the highway.
Yeah, Hochul's not going to rock the boat on this. This is a bit too far along, and it would provoke outrage among the people in Syracuse and activists in the Democratic base who are looking forward to the viaduct coming down. Given that Hochul's record already makes her vulnerable to a primary challenge come next year, I doubt she'd do anything to scrap this unless the political winds change.
The Skyway removal is probably dead, though. At this point, about the only person who actually supports that is Cuomo. Even the congressman who was pushing it turned against the plan when Cuomo started supporting the "Cloudwalk" concept for re-using most of the structure (rather than actually removing it). Plus the community would rather attention go towards the Kensington and the Scajaquada right now.
Quote from: kalvado on August 12, 2021, 12:53:36 PMQuote from: vdeane on August 12, 2021, 12:42:44 PMOne small factor maybe that Hochul got her bachelors from SU, and probably is very familiar with the highway.
Yeah, Hochul's not going to rock the boat on this. This is a bit too far along, and it would provoke outrage among the people in Syracuse and activists in the Democratic base who are looking forward to the viaduct coming down. Given that Hochul's record already makes her vulnerable to a primary challenge come next year, I doubt she'd do anything to scrap this unless the political winds change.
The Skyway removal is probably dead, though. At this point, about the only person who actually supports that is Cuomo. Even the congressman who was pushing it turned against the plan when Cuomo started supporting the "Cloudwalk" concept for re-using most of the structure (rather than actually removing it). Plus the community would rather attention go towards the Kensington and the Scajaquada right now.
Quote from: Rothman on August 12, 2021, 01:20:48 PMLet me shorten it.Quote from: kalvado on August 12, 2021, 12:53:36 PMQuote from: vdeane on August 12, 2021, 12:42:44 PMOne small factor maybe that Hochul got her bachelors from SU, and probably is very familiar with the highway.
Yeah, Hochul's not going to rock the boat on this. This is a bit too far along, and it would provoke outrage among the people in Syracuse and activists in the Democratic base who are looking forward to the viaduct coming down. Given that Hochul's record already makes her vulnerable to a primary challenge come next year, I doubt she'd do anything to scrap this unless the political winds change.
The Skyway removal is probably dead, though. At this point, about the only person who actually supports that is Cuomo. Even the congressman who was pushing it turned against the plan when Cuomo started supporting the "Cloudwalk" concept for re-using most of the structure (rather than actually removing it). Plus the community would rather attention go towards the Kensington and the Scajaquada right now.
The bigger factors, if she was in favor of replacement, would be the need to scrap the entire EIS process (when the major public hearing is next week), start all over again, wasting the millions spent already, ticking off the people that want the thing torn down, needing to find a few hundred million in additional funding (when phase 1 isn't even on the STIP yet) and delaying construction of phase 1 that is to begin next year. She would be basically creating a huge headache that no semi-unelected new governor would want.
Quote from: kalvado on August 12, 2021, 02:10:36 PMYes: An understanding of the federal project process and the consequences of changing direction too late in preliminary design on highly complex projects.Quote from: Rothman on August 12, 2021, 01:20:48 PMLet me shorten it.Quote from: kalvado on August 12, 2021, 12:53:36 PMQuote from: vdeane on August 12, 2021, 12:42:44 PMOne small factor maybe that Hochul got her bachelors from SU, and probably is very familiar with the highway.
Yeah, Hochul's not going to rock the boat on this. This is a bit too far along, and it would provoke outrage among the people in Syracuse and activists in the Democratic base who are looking forward to the viaduct coming down. Given that Hochul's record already makes her vulnerable to a primary challenge come next year, I doubt she'd do anything to scrap this unless the political winds change.
The Skyway removal is probably dead, though. At this point, about the only person who actually supports that is Cuomo. Even the congressman who was pushing it turned against the plan when Cuomo started supporting the "Cloudwalk" concept for re-using most of the structure (rather than actually removing it). Plus the community would rather attention go towards the Kensington and the Scajaquada right now.
The bigger factors, if she was in favor of replacement, would be the need to scrap the entire EIS process (when the major public hearing is next week), start all over again, wasting the millions spent already, ticking off the people that want the thing torn down, needing to find a few hundred million in additional funding (when phase 1 isn't even on the STIP yet) and delaying construction of phase 1 that is to begin next year. She would be basically creating a huge headache that no semi-unelected new governor would want.
<business as usual in NY>
Am I missing something?
Quote from: Rothman on August 12, 2021, 03:26:42 PMWell, then let's hope things work the way you expect and dirt starts moving before viaduct collapse!Quote from: kalvado on August 12, 2021, 02:10:36 PMYes: An understanding of the federal project process and the consequences of changing direction too late in preliminary design on highly complex projects.Quote from: Rothman on August 12, 2021, 01:20:48 PMLet me shorten it.Quote from: kalvado on August 12, 2021, 12:53:36 PMQuote from: vdeane on August 12, 2021, 12:42:44 PMOne small factor maybe that Hochul got her bachelors from SU, and probably is very familiar with the highway.
Yeah, Hochul's not going to rock the boat on this. This is a bit too far along, and it would provoke outrage among the people in Syracuse and activists in the Democratic base who are looking forward to the viaduct coming down. Given that Hochul's record already makes her vulnerable to a primary challenge come next year, I doubt she'd do anything to scrap this unless the political winds change.
The Skyway removal is probably dead, though. At this point, about the only person who actually supports that is Cuomo. Even the congressman who was pushing it turned against the plan when Cuomo started supporting the "Cloudwalk" concept for re-using most of the structure (rather than actually removing it). Plus the community would rather attention go towards the Kensington and the Scajaquada right now.
The bigger factors, if she was in favor of replacement, would be the need to scrap the entire EIS process (when the major public hearing is next week), start all over again, wasting the millions spent already, ticking off the people that want the thing torn down, needing to find a few hundred million in additional funding (when phase 1 isn't even on the STIP yet) and delaying construction of phase 1 that is to begin next year. She would be basically creating a huge headache that no semi-unelected new governor would want.
<business as usual in NY>
Am I missing something?
It's not just NY politics, but the federal framework pressuring politicians' decisionmaking.
Quote from: Flyer78 on August 13, 2021, 10:02:31 AMYep. Has the open house and local neighborhood meeting schedule on there, too.
Per the Syracuse Post Standard DOT released some more videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdauzvEu1kffaQEsW39AeIZTx961huno9
Also linked is the project website, https://webapps.dot.ny.gov/i-81-viaduct-project
Quote from: TheDon102 on August 13, 2021, 04:41:46 PMCommunity does prefer demolishing the elevated option.
Obviously the grid is gonna be chosen, but its not 100% a done deal. Especially if the community would prefer the elevated option.
Question, why not just make this a depressed freeway and cap it?
Quote from: kalvado on August 13, 2021, 04:44:58 PMQuote from: TheDon102 on August 13, 2021, 04:41:46 PMCommunity does prefer demolishing the elevated option.
Obviously the grid is gonna be chosen, but its not 100% a done deal. Especially if the community would prefer the elevated option.
Question, why not just make this a depressed freeway and cap it?
And we discussed suppressed/tunnel options. Quick summary: Nope.
Quote from: TheDon102 on August 13, 2021, 04:57:00 PMFeel free to read this thread. It's not that long, just 1000 posts.Quote from: kalvado on August 13, 2021, 04:44:58 PMQuote from: TheDon102 on August 13, 2021, 04:41:46 PMCommunity does prefer demolishing the elevated option.
Obviously the grid is gonna be chosen, but its not 100% a done deal. Especially if the community would prefer the elevated option.
Question, why not just make this a depressed freeway and cap it?
And we discussed suppressed/tunnel options. Quick summary: Nope.
I'm just making a guess here, but is it not possible due to connections to I-690?
Quote from: kalvado on August 13, 2021, 04:44:58 PMMeh. Community's divided and mad. We'll see what happens on Thursday.Quote from: TheDon102 on August 13, 2021, 04:41:46 PMCommunity does prefer demolishing the elevated option.
Obviously the grid is gonna be chosen, but its not 100% a done deal. Especially if the community would prefer the elevated option.
Question, why not just make this a depressed freeway and cap it?
And we discussed suppressed/tunnel options. Quick summary: Nope.
Quote from: vdeane on July 16, 2021, 09:31:12 PMOK, to make things clear: what portions of I-81 in Syracuse will be gone and which will stay. From what I am seeing, the only city pair that will be negatively affected is Rochester-NYC. Buffalo-NYC traffic doesn't even go through Syracuse.
Yeah, I don't get this obsession with removing the part that remains a freeway from the interstate system. I noticed this in the project goals:Quote
Maintain or enhance vehicle access to the interstate highway network and key destinations (i.e., business districts, hospitals, and institutions) within neighborhoods within and near Downtown Syracuse.
Apparently everyone who uses I-81 between the I-481 interchanges but isn't going to/from downtown Syracuse is not important. How about the interstate connectivity of everyone going from Rochester/Buffalo to the 1000 Islands, eastern Ontario, and Québec? It sucks that the "only the individual corridor matters, not what it means for the connectivity and continuity of the rest of the system" attitude that I've complained at length about with respect to Canada has infected NY. I'm starting to think that if the people who are in charge of DOTs today were around in the 1950s, we would never have gotten an interstate system - we would only have gotten relocated US routes, and the lower traffic corridors might not have gotten anything at all beyond perhaps bypasses for the towns. The red, white, and blue shield we all know and love would never have existed.
And yeah, I agree about the downgrade in the alternatives. I liked the original one better than what we have now.
(personal opinion)
Quote from: roadman65 on August 13, 2021, 11:26:02 PMLooks like the part of I-81 north of the Thruway will still be a freeway just numbered differently.
https://www.syracuse.com/news/2019/06/5-things-to-know-about-how-i-481-would-become-i-81-near-syracuse.html
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 13, 2021, 11:13:19 PMhttps://www.google.com/maps/dir/Buffalo,+NY/New+York,+NY/@42.2964056,-76.3975838,8z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89d3126152dfe5a1:0x982304a5181f8171!2m2!1d-78.8783689!2d42.8864468!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62!2m2!1d-74.0059728!2d40.7127753!3e0
^ Buffalo to NYC uses the exact same route as Rochester to NYC... It just joins the Thruway further west...
Quote from: roadman65 on August 13, 2021, 11:26:02 PMSo they're calling the entire (soon to be former) I-81 between the two I-481 junctions as Business 81... I thought that at least the I-481 number would be reused on the I-690 to I-81/NY 481 section, a local street name on the section with the freeway removed, then a new x81 (thinking I-381) between the southern end of the removed freeway and I-81. Not sure on how others think, but I dislike business interstates being signed on long freeway stretches. Either give it a 3di or a state route number.
https://www.syracuse.com/news/2019/06/5-things-to-know-about-how-i-481-would-become-i-81-near-syracuse.html
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 13, 2021, 11:55:30 PMNot a fan of it but I guess it makes it simpler.Quote from: roadman65 on August 13, 2021, 11:26:02 PMSo they're calling the entire (soon to be former) I-81 between the two I-481 junctions as Business 81... I thought that at least the I-481 number would be reused on the I-690 to I-81/NY 481 section, a local street name on the section with the freeway removed, then a new x81 (thinking I-381) between the southern end of the removed freeway and I-81. Not sure on how others think, but I dislike business interstates being signed on long freeway stretches. Either give it a 3di or a state route number.
https://www.syracuse.com/news/2019/06/5-things-to-know-about-how-i-481-would-become-i-81-near-syracuse.html
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 13, 2021, 11:47:49 PMFrom Downtown, the route you mention is the exact same travel time as I-90 / I-81. It may be preferred over the long, two lane section of US-20A.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Buffalo,+NY/New+York,+NY/@42.2964056,-76.3975838,8z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89d3126152dfe5a1:0x982304a5181f8171!2m2!1d-78.8783689!2d42.8864468!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62!2m2!1d-74.0059728!2d40.7127753!3e0
The Thruway is not used, the fastest route is 20A-390-86.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 13, 2021, 11:26:02 PMOf course, the proper solution to improve I-481 to accommodate significantly increased traffic volumes along with future projections would be an expansion from 4 to 6 lanes throughout, plus the currently proposed auxiliary lanes where needed.
https://www.syracuse.com/news/2019/06/5-things-to-know-about-how-i-481-would-become-i-81-near-syracuse.html
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 13, 2021, 11:47:49 PMPfft. I still doubt many people go that way.Quote from: roadman65 on August 13, 2021, 11:26:02 PMLooks like the part of I-81 north of the Thruway will still be a freeway just numbered differently.
https://www.syracuse.com/news/2019/06/5-things-to-know-about-how-i-481-would-become-i-81-near-syracuse.htmlQuote from: sprjus4 on August 13, 2021, 11:13:19 PMhttps://www.google.com/maps/dir/Buffalo,+NY/New+York,+NY/@42.2964056,-76.3975838,8z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89d3126152dfe5a1:0x982304a5181f8171!2m2!1d-78.8783689!2d42.8864468!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62!2m2!1d-74.0059728!2d40.7127753!3e0
^ Buffalo to NYC uses the exact same route as Rochester to NYC... It just joins the Thruway further west...
The Thruway is not used, the fastest route is 20A-390-86.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 13, 2021, 11:26:02 PMEgads. That article is two years old.
https://www.syracuse.com/news/2019/06/5-things-to-know-about-how-i-481-would-become-i-81-near-syracuse.html
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 14, 2021, 08:45:07 AMQuote from: roadman65 on August 13, 2021, 11:26:02 PMOf course, the proper solution to improve I-481 to accommodate significantly increased traffic volumes along with future projections would be an expansion from 4 to 6 lanes throughout, plus the currently proposed auxiliary lanes where needed.
https://www.syracuse.com/news/2019/06/5-things-to-know-about-how-i-481-would-become-i-81-near-syracuse.html
But that would cost too much money... say, maybe, the additional costs needed to reconstruct the I-81 viaduct?
It seems to me, without proper expansion of I-481, traffic will increase significantly on that route and with congestion becoming more commonplace due to lack of proper capacity.
Quote from: Rothman on August 14, 2021, 09:14:05 AMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on August 13, 2021, 11:47:49 PMPfft. I still doubt many people go that way.Quote from: sprjus4 on August 13, 2021, 11:13:19 PM...
^ Buffalo to NYC uses the exact same route as Rochester to NYC... It just joins the Thruway further west...
The Thruway is not used, the fastest route is 20A-390-86.
I also wonder how many people go from Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo down to the City. I would think it pales in comparison to Albany.
Quote from: webny99 on August 14, 2021, 10:37:05 AMTrucks were taking NY 63 for a while. I haven't heard concerns about that "shortcut" in five years or so, though.Quote from: Rothman on August 14, 2021, 09:14:05 AMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on August 13, 2021, 11:47:49 PMPfft. I still doubt many people go that way.Quote from: sprjus4 on August 13, 2021, 11:13:19 PM...
^ Buffalo to NYC uses the exact same route as Rochester to NYC... It just joins the Thruway further west...
The Thruway is not used, the fastest route is 20A-390-86.
I also wonder how many people go from Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo down to the City. I would think it pales in comparison to Albany.
It's basically identical time-wise, and I-81/I-90 is faster to the northern suburbs (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/NYC,+NY/Amherst,+NY/@41.788742,-78.3263839,7.25z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62!2m2!1d-74.0059728!2d40.7127753!1m5!1m1!1s0x89d3724da88354b3:0xd481fd9c25afd0ad!2m2!1d-78.792272!2d42.9790067!3e0) and Niagara Falls (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/NYC,+NY/Niagara+Falls,+NY/@42.1176271,-78.6676128,7.25z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62!2m2!1d-74.0059728!2d40.7127753!1m5!1m1!1s0x89d363ea29e633b7:0x61975ae4b9c5aab3!2m2!1d-79.0377388!2d43.0962143!3e0). Google doesn't even recommend US 20A as an option for those points. And even for Buffalo itself, anyone with any aversion to two-lane roads whatsoever is going to opt for I-81/I-90. Also, trucks are banned from US 20A in Warsaw, so all truck traffic would likely use I-81/I-90 (I-390 to NY 36/NY 63 is an option, but not a great one).
And that's not to mention Canada - most of the truck traffic from there is also going to end up on I-90 because of the same issue with 20A. You'll see plenty of trucks with Ontario plates on the southern half of I-390, but I suspect most of those are going to/from PA/MD and points further south, not NYC/NJ/CT.
Quote from: froggie on August 14, 2021, 09:58:36 AM
Even with rerouted traffic, the entire I-481 route does not need to be 6 lanes. It's just not that busy, especially north of the Thruway. While IMO the current plan for auxiliary lanes falls short, you would really only need 6 lanes between NY 5/92 and the Thruway.
Quote from: webny99 on August 14, 2021, 10:45:19 AMOh, it's busy. The speed limit on that road is 65, but traffic often is stuck at 60. Normally, I drive 72 in 65 zones, but getting to that speed is basically impossible on I-481. And that's with the traffic as it is now.Quote from: froggie on August 14, 2021, 09:58:36 AM
Even with rerouted traffic, the entire I-481 route does not need to be 6 lanes. It's just not that busy, especially north of the Thruway. While IMO the current plan for auxiliary lanes falls short, you would really only need 6 lanes between NY 5/92 and the Thruway.
It's not that busy now, but it remains to be seen what it will be like with the new traffic patterns..
With that said, though, doesn't the plan now basically provide 6 lanes from NY 5/92 to the Thruway? The only exception I can see is SB from the Thruway to Kirkville Rd - only a mile or so, and there will be a NB auxiliary lane on that segment.
Quote from: vdeane on August 14, 2021, 11:49:12 PMQuote from: webny99 on August 14, 2021, 10:45:19 AMOh, it's busy. The speed limit on that road is 65, but traffic often is stuck at 60. Normally, I drive 72 in 65 zones, but getting to that speed is basically impossible on I-481. And that's with the traffic as it is now.Quote from: froggie on August 14, 2021, 09:58:36 AM
Even with rerouted traffic, the entire I-481 route does not need to be 6 lanes. It's just not that busy, especially north of the Thruway. While IMO the current plan for auxiliary lanes falls short, you would really only need 6 lanes between NY 5/92 and the Thruway.
It's not that busy now, but it remains to be seen what it will be like with the new traffic patterns..
With that said, though, doesn't the plan now basically provide 6 lanes from NY 5/92 to the Thruway? The only exception I can see is SB from the Thruway to Kirkville Rd - only a mile or so, and there will be a NB auxiliary lane on that segment.
Quote from: vdeane on August 14, 2021, 11:49:12 PMQuote from: webny99 on August 14, 2021, 10:45:19 AMOh, it's busy. The speed limit on that road is 65, but traffic often is stuck at 60. Normally, I drive 72 in 65 zones, but getting to that speed is basically impossible on I-481. And that's with the traffic as it is now.Quote from: froggie on August 14, 2021, 09:58:36 AM
Even with rerouted traffic, the entire I-481 route does not need to be 6 lanes. It's just not that busy, especially north of the Thruway. While IMO the current plan for auxiliary lanes falls short, you would really only need 6 lanes between NY 5/92 and the Thruway.
It's not that busy now, but it remains to be seen what it will be like with the new traffic patterns..
With that said, though, doesn't the plan now basically provide 6 lanes from NY 5/92 to the Thruway? The only exception I can see is SB from the Thruway to Kirkville Rd - only a mile or so, and there will be a NB auxiliary lane on that segment.
Quote from: Rothman on August 15, 2021, 06:03:54 PMI cannot say that I've ever experienced free-flow conditions on I-481 between NY 5 and the Thruway, except perhaps early on a Sunday morning. Heck, on my last drive, I never managed to get above 65 at any point, and I've found that's fairly typical. Now, I'm not on the road during rush hour - more like mid-day. Now, Syracuse locals do tend to drive slower in 65 zones than I would, so maybe that's why it feels fine to you. I have similar issues on I-81 too, but I-81 has room to maneuver around the slowpokes. I-481 doesn't.Quote from: vdeane on August 14, 2021, 11:49:12 PMQuote from: webny99 on August 14, 2021, 10:45:19 AMOh, it's busy. The speed limit on that road is 65, but traffic often is stuck at 60. Normally, I drive 72 in 65 zones, but getting to that speed is basically impossible on I-481. And that's with the traffic as it is now.Quote from: froggie on August 14, 2021, 09:58:36 AM
Even with rerouted traffic, the entire I-481 route does not need to be 6 lanes. It's just not that busy, especially north of the Thruway. While IMO the current plan for auxiliary lanes falls short, you would really only need 6 lanes between NY 5/92 and the Thruway.
It's not that busy now, but it remains to be seen what it will be like with the new traffic patterns..
With that said, though, doesn't the plan now basically provide 6 lanes from NY 5/92 to the Thruway? The only exception I can see is SB from the Thruway to Kirkville Rd - only a mile or so, and there will be a NB auxiliary lane on that segment.
Pfft. No, it isn't. I drive on the section between I-690 and the Thruway frequently and haven't had much trouble out of the ordinary. There's some minor traffic at rush hour and getting out on Fridays, but it's pretty tame.
Quote from: vdeane on August 15, 2021, 07:54:07 PMQuote from: Rothman on August 15, 2021, 06:03:54 PMI cannot say that I've ever experienced free-flow conditions on I-481 between NY 5 and the Thruway, except perhaps early on a Sunday morning. Heck, on my last drive, I never managed to get above 65 at any point, and I've found that's fairly typical. Now, I'm not on the road during rush hour - more like mid-day. Now, Syracuse locals do tend to drive slower in 65 zones than I would, so maybe that's why it feels fine to you. I have similar issues on I-81 too, but I-81 has room to maneuver around the slowpokes. I-481 doesn't.Quote from: vdeane on August 14, 2021, 11:49:12 PMQuote from: webny99 on August 14, 2021, 10:45:19 AMOh, it's busy. The speed limit on that road is 65, but traffic often is stuck at 60. Normally, I drive 72 in 65 zones, but getting to that speed is basically impossible on I-481. And that's with the traffic as it is now.Quote from: froggie on August 14, 2021, 09:58:36 AM
Even with rerouted traffic, the entire I-481 route does not need to be 6 lanes. It's just not that busy, especially north of the Thruway. While IMO the current plan for auxiliary lanes falls short, you would really only need 6 lanes between NY 5/92 and the Thruway.
It's not that busy now, but it remains to be seen what it will be like with the new traffic patterns..
With that said, though, doesn't the plan now basically provide 6 lanes from NY 5/92 to the Thruway? The only exception I can see is SB from the Thruway to Kirkville Rd - only a mile or so, and there will be a NB auxiliary lane on that segment.
Pfft. No, it isn't. I drive on the section between I-690 and the Thruway frequently and haven't had much trouble out of the ordinary. There's some minor traffic at rush hour and getting out on Fridays, but it's pretty tame.
Now, most people DO tend to have more of a "go with the flow" attitude towards speed than I do. I'm the type that wants to go a certain speed for a certain speed limit unless the roadway geometry or weather conditions dictate otherwise, so I tend to get annoyed whenever my speed is instead dictated by how fast the person in front of me is going. This leads to a unique effect where I go from being one of the faster cars on the road to one of the slower ones where I-81 drops to 55 mph. This effect happens everywhere, but it does seem to be more pronounced around Syracuse as Region 3 has raised more of their suburban freeway network to 65 than the other urban regions have.
Quote from: vdeane on August 14, 2021, 11:49:12 PM
Oh, it's busy. The speed limit on that road is 65, but traffic often is stuck at 60. Normally, I drive 72 in 65 zones, but getting to that speed is basically impossible on I-481. And that's with the traffic as it is now.
Quote from: vdeane on August 14, 2021, 11:49:12 PM
This leads to a unique effect where I go from being one of the faster cars on the road to one of the slower ones where I-81 drops to 55 mph. This effect happens everywhere, but it does seem to be more pronounced around Syracuse as Region 3 has raised more of their suburban freeway network to 65 than the other urban regions have.
Quote from: Rothman on August 15, 2021, 08:15:35 PM
I'm more concerned about the northeast arm of I-481. There, a little more congestion is more common.
Quote from: webny99 on August 15, 2021, 11:17:24 PMQuote from: Rothman on August 15, 2021, 08:15:35 PM
I'm more concerned about the northeast arm of I-481. There, a little more congestion is more common.
The section north of the Thruway? Whereabouts, exactly? I've never heard of any problems on that section and traffic volumes are also lower than the Thruway to NY 5/92.
Quote from: Rothman on August 15, 2021, 11:22:12 PM
5/92's always going to be an issue due to people getting to the shopping centers in Fayetteville and commuters, so some more traffic there will just blend into expectations. Up north? That might get people ticked due to it being more surprising.
Quote from: Michael on August 19, 2021, 08:11:50 PMI don't believe Destiny USA showed up at the hearings yesterday. Not sure. From what I heard, they were uneventful.
I saw this on Syracuse.com the other day: Destiny USA hires former Federal Highway Administration lawyer to fight I-81 plan (https://www.syracuse.com/state/2021/08/destiny-usa-hires-former-federal-highway-administration-lawyer-to-fight-i-81-plan.html)
Quote from: froggie on August 19, 2021, 08:17:14 PMThat's odd. Wasn't it mentioned that the projects on I-481 were supposed to happen first? Wouldn't it be logical for the designation change to happen right after that?
It was mentioned in another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29335.msg2650769#msg2650769) that AASHTO has posted the route applications for this latest round of Interstate/U.S./USBR changes. Worth noting that, per NYSDOT's applications on I-81/I-481, they intend to have things changed by the spring of 2027.
Quote from: froggie on August 19, 2021, 10:41:56 PM
Yes, I recall something along those lines was mentioned, and it makes sense to get the I-481 stuff done first. But that doesn't mean NYSDOT will move I-81 over right away....it's entirely plausible that they will build everything along 481 and just pull a NCDOT and slap I-81 overlays on the signage when they actually make the change.
Quote from: vdeane on August 21, 2021, 11:23:29 AM
Meanwhile, the public comments seem to be against the grid and frustrated that DOT seems to be only listening to the city:
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/news/2021/08/19/voicing-concerns-over-the-future-of-i-81-
Quote from: cl94 on August 21, 2021, 11:44:18 AMThe article is biased and presents mainly a slanted suburban perspective of a single commuter citizen.Quote from: vdeane on August 21, 2021, 11:23:29 AM
Meanwhile, the public comments seem to be against the grid and frustrated that DOT seems to be only listening to the city:
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/news/2021/08/19/voicing-concerns-over-the-future-of-i-81-
Oh, this has been known for a while. Most of the surrounding areas hate it, only Syracuse and a few state-level politicians want it.
(Personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2021, 12:41:55 PMStage V - acceptance.Quote from: cl94 on August 21, 2021, 11:44:18 AMThe article is biased and presents mainly a slanted suburban perspective of a single commuter citizen.Quote from: vdeane on August 21, 2021, 11:23:29 AM
Meanwhile, the public comments seem to be against the grid and frustrated that DOT seems to be only listening to the city:
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/news/2021/08/19/voicing-concerns-over-the-future-of-i-81-
Oh, this has been known for a while. Most of the surrounding areas hate it, only Syracuse and a few state-level politicians want it.
(Personal opinion emphasized)
I attended the hearing. The majority of comments were pro-grid, especially from the elected officials and other community leaders. Even those from the suburbs said "I am for the grid, but could you improve X in the plan" kinds of comments.
Quote from: kalvado on August 21, 2021, 12:45:45 PMThe real opposition seems to be playing out as the Destiny USA lawsuit...if that doesn't just fizzle out. Not sure what changes that lawsuit would cause -- meaning, I doubt much, if any, given FHWA and NYSDOT's authority and the NEPA and SEQR requirements.Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2021, 12:41:55 PMStage V - acceptance.Quote from: cl94 on August 21, 2021, 11:44:18 AMThe article is biased and presents mainly a slanted suburban perspective of a single commuter citizen.Quote from: vdeane on August 21, 2021, 11:23:29 AM
Meanwhile, the public comments seem to be against the grid and frustrated that DOT seems to be only listening to the city:
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/news/2021/08/19/voicing-concerns-over-the-future-of-i-81-
Oh, this has been known for a while. Most of the surrounding areas hate it, only Syracuse and a few state-level politicians want it.
(Personal opinion emphasized)
I attended the hearing. The majority of comments were pro-grid, especially from the elected officials and other community leaders. Even those from the suburbs said "I am for the grid, but could you improve X in the plan" kinds of comments.
Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2021, 12:48:30 PMI don't really understand what the real opposition is at this point.Quote from: kalvado on August 21, 2021, 12:45:45 PMThe real opposition seems to be playing out as the Destiny USA lawsuit...if that doesn't just fizzle out. Not sure what changes that lawsuit would cause -- meaning, I doubt much, if any, given FHWA and NYSDOT's authority and the NEPA and SEQR requirements.Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2021, 12:41:55 PMStage V - acceptance.Quote from: cl94 on August 21, 2021, 11:44:18 AMThe article is biased and presents mainly a slanted suburban perspective of a single commuter citizen.Quote from: vdeane on August 21, 2021, 11:23:29 AM
Meanwhile, the public comments seem to be against the grid and frustrated that DOT seems to be only listening to the city:
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/news/2021/08/19/voicing-concerns-over-the-future-of-i-81-
Oh, this has been known for a while. Most of the surrounding areas hate it, only Syracuse and a few state-level politicians want it.
(Personal opinion emphasized)
I attended the hearing. The majority of comments were pro-grid, especially from the elected officials and other community leaders. Even those from the suburbs said "I am for the grid, but could you improve X in the plan" kinds of comments.
Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2021, 12:41:55 PMOf course the most vocal crowd at town hall meetings regarding transportation infrastructure especially in a state that is majority Democrat will likely be anything that is anti freeway especially in this case. Most of the comments submitted were against the grid on the public comment period and in person at the town hall hearing they were for it. Then you have others trying to convince people by saying eventually they'll just have to accept it.Quote from: cl94 on August 21, 2021, 11:44:18 AMThe article is biased and presents mainly a slanted suburban perspective of a single commuter citizen.Quote from: vdeane on August 21, 2021, 11:23:29 AM
Meanwhile, the public comments seem to be against the grid and frustrated that DOT seems to be only listening to the city:
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/news/2021/08/19/voicing-concerns-over-the-future-of-i-81-
Oh, this has been known for a while. Most of the surrounding areas hate it, only Syracuse and a few state-level politicians want it.
(Personal opinion emphasized)
I attended the hearing. The majority of comments were pro-grid, especially from the elected officials and other community leaders. Even those from the suburbs said "I am for the grid, but could you improve X in the plan" kinds of comments.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 21, 2021, 01:15:05 PMGiven the comments I heard, anti-freeway sentiment or hyperbolic New Urbanist mantras were minimal. The first public comment at the hearing was from an older gentleman who went on a very short rant about the project being all about "social justice" and implied heavily that was a bad thing but didn't explain why (and therefore, his comment will be easily dismissed). The rest were quite reasonable.Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2021, 12:41:55 PMOf course the most vocal crowd at town hall meetings regarding transportation infrastructure especially in a state that is majority Democrat will likely be anything that is anti freeway especially in this case. Most of the comments submitted were against the grid on the public comment period and in person at the town hall hearing they were for it. Then you have others trying to convince people by saying eventually they'll just have to accept it.Quote from: cl94 on August 21, 2021, 11:44:18 AMThe article is biased and presents mainly a slanted suburban perspective of a single commuter citizen.Quote from: vdeane on August 21, 2021, 11:23:29 AM
Meanwhile, the public comments seem to be against the grid and frustrated that DOT seems to be only listening to the city:
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/news/2021/08/19/voicing-concerns-over-the-future-of-i-81-
Oh, this has been known for a while. Most of the surrounding areas hate it, only Syracuse and a few state-level politicians want it.
(Personal opinion emphasized)
I attended the hearing. The majority of comments were pro-grid, especially from the elected officials and other community leaders. Even those from the suburbs said "I am for the grid, but could you improve X in the plan" kinds of comments.
Hopefully a miracle comes through and the grid is option is done away in a favor if the more sensible alternative.
Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2021, 02:20:36 PMNot sure really what else to say. The social justice remediation aspect of this could be solved by a tunnel but then somehow we can't do what tons of other countries around the world can do because it is too expensive. So then according to city leaders the only option is to downgrade the corridor back to a street and shove the current traffic on additional facilities. I disagree and still have yet to submit a comment but I will draft one today now that I'm thinking about it.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 21, 2021, 01:15:05 PMGiven the comments I heard, anti-freeway sentiment or hyperbolic New Urbanist mantras were minimal. The first public comment at the hearing was from an older gentleman who went on a very short rant about the project being all about "social justice" and implied heavily that was a bad thing but didn't explain why (and therefore, his comment will be easily dismissed). The rest were quite reasonable.Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2021, 12:41:55 PMOf course the most vocal crowd at town hall meetings regarding transportation infrastructure especially in a state that is majority Democrat will likely be anything that is anti freeway especially in this case. Most of the comments submitted were against the grid on the public comment period and in person at the town hall hearing they were for it. Then you have others trying to convince people by saying eventually they'll just have to accept it.Quote from: cl94 on August 21, 2021, 11:44:18 AMThe article is biased and presents mainly a slanted suburban perspective of a single commuter citizen.Quote from: vdeane on August 21, 2021, 11:23:29 AM
Meanwhile, the public comments seem to be against the grid and frustrated that DOT seems to be only listening to the city:
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/news/2021/08/19/voicing-concerns-over-the-future-of-i-81-
Oh, this has been known for a while. Most of the surrounding areas hate it, only Syracuse and a few state-level politicians want it.
(Personal opinion emphasized)
I attended the hearing. The majority of comments were pro-grid, especially from the elected officials and other community leaders. Even those from the suburbs said "I am for the grid, but could you improve X in the plan" kinds of comments.
Hopefully a miracle comes through and the grid is option is done away in a favor if the more sensible alternative.
Also, the public comment period isn't even over yet, so I don't know where you're getting your information from...unless you're talking about outreach done a couple of years ago or more, which really no longer has a bearing. What matters now are the comments received during this period and through the hearings and neighborhood meetings on the DEIS.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 21, 2021, 03:19:36 PMSure. A decent number of comments were about the configuration of Almond Avenue, desiring a narrower boulevard -- one downtown development association outright said they wanted Almond to be narrower so there was more surplus land to develop.Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2021, 02:20:36 PMNot sure really what else to say. The social justice remediation aspect of this could be solved by a tunnel but then somehow we can't do what tons of other countries around the world can do because it is too expensive. So then according to city leaders the only option is to downgrade the corridor back to a street and shove the current traffic on additional facilities. I disagree and still have yet to submit a comment but I will draft one today now that I'm thinking about it.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 21, 2021, 01:15:05 PMGiven the comments I heard, anti-freeway sentiment or hyperbolic New Urbanist mantras were minimal. The first public comment at the hearing was from an older gentleman who went on a very short rant about the project being all about "social justice" and implied heavily that was a bad thing but didn't explain why (and therefore, his comment will be easily dismissed). The rest were quite reasonable.Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2021, 12:41:55 PMOf course the most vocal crowd at town hall meetings regarding transportation infrastructure especially in a state that is majority Democrat will likely be anything that is anti freeway especially in this case. Most of the comments submitted were against the grid on the public comment period and in person at the town hall hearing they were for it. Then you have others trying to convince people by saying eventually they'll just have to accept it.Quote from: cl94 on August 21, 2021, 11:44:18 AMThe article is biased and presents mainly a slanted suburban perspective of a single commuter citizen.Quote from: vdeane on August 21, 2021, 11:23:29 AM
Meanwhile, the public comments seem to be against the grid and frustrated that DOT seems to be only listening to the city:
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/news/2021/08/19/voicing-concerns-over-the-future-of-i-81-
Oh, this has been known for a while. Most of the surrounding areas hate it, only Syracuse and a few state-level politicians want it.
(Personal opinion emphasized)
I attended the hearing. The majority of comments were pro-grid, especially from the elected officials and other community leaders. Even those from the suburbs said "I am for the grid, but could you improve X in the plan" kinds of comments.
Hopefully a miracle comes through and the grid is option is done away in a favor if the more sensible alternative.
Also, the public comment period isn't even over yet, so I don't know where you're getting your information from...unless you're talking about outreach done a couple of years ago or more, which really no longer has a bearing. What matters now are the comments received during this period and through the hearings and neighborhood meetings on the DEIS.
Quote from: webny99 on August 21, 2021, 06:24:34 PMWe shall see. :D
I would think the in-person comments would skew heavily in favor of the grid, while comments submitted online would skew heavily in favor of rebuilding the viaduct. Most of the people giving that care about the regional impact don't live in Syracuse, after all.
Quote from: webny99 on August 21, 2021, 06:24:34 PMThis might be unpopular but I would value the opinion of Syracuse residents more than others as the highway does go through their city.
I would think the in-person comments would skew heavily in favor of the grid, while comments submitted online would skew heavily in favor of rebuilding the viaduct. Most of the people giving that care about the regional impact don't live in Syracuse, after all.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 21, 2021, 07:08:32 PMSupporting NIMBY? That is popular opinion over here! And a very divisive one. Just for lulz:Quote from: webny99 on August 21, 2021, 06:24:34 PMThis might be unpopular but I would value the opinion of Syracuse residents more than others as the highway does go through their city.
I would think the in-person comments would skew heavily in favor of the grid, while comments submitted online would skew heavily in favor of rebuilding the viaduct. Most of the people giving that care about the regional impact don't live in Syracuse, after all.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 21, 2021, 07:08:32 PMRight so with that logic let's have a nationwide referendum so each city can decide it if it wants to keep their freeway or remove it and see how that works out.Quote from: webny99 on August 21, 2021, 06:24:34 PMThis might be unpopular but I would value the opinion of Syracuse residents more than others as the highway does go through their city.
I would think the in-person comments would skew heavily in favor of the grid, while comments submitted online would skew heavily in favor of rebuilding the viaduct. Most of the people giving that care about the regional impact don't live in Syracuse, after all.
Quote from: kalvado on August 22, 2021, 10:40:08 AM
In a grand scheme of things, there is one thing Syracuse needs more than a highway (or removal of a highwayI. Like many other rust belt cities, Syracuse needs economic future. And i am surprised that is not discussed in I-81 context.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 22, 2021, 11:14:25 AMThat's a bit silly, most of the freeways residents don't like are in downtowns. Also people in Syracuse probably wouldn't care if it takes someone from NYC an extra 7 minutes to get to Rochester.Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 21, 2021, 07:08:32 PMRight so with that logic let's have a nationwide referendum so each city can decide it if it wants to keep their freeway or remove it and see how that works out.Quote from: webny99 on August 21, 2021, 06:24:34 PMThis might be unpopular but I would value the opinion of Syracuse residents more than others as the highway does go through their city.
I would think the in-person comments would skew heavily in favor of the grid, while comments submitted online would skew heavily in favor of rebuilding the viaduct. Most of the people giving that care about the regional impact don't live in Syracuse, after all.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 22, 2021, 01:43:08 PMWell the point is I-81 is going to fall apart anyway so the real question is if we should rebuild it or not.
I mean, if we're basing off that logic, let's demolish I-35 through Austin. Or I-345 in Dallas. Add I-30 and I-35E to that mix as well. I-10/35 through San Antonio? Demolish it. I-37? Demolish it. I-10, I-45, and I-69 through Houston? Demolish them.
Every urban highway, let's just demolish. If we're going to "value the opinion of residents" who don't even use these highways are through routes let alone use the highway on a daily basis.
Quote from: webny99 on August 22, 2021, 03:59:05 PMHow much would it cost to rebuild it? Also won't there still be a road in downtown Syracuse, just not an interstate? How much time would it add for any long-distance traffic?
But when you think about it, it's pretty bizarre that there is even a question of whether to rebuild it.
In 49 other states, it wouldn't even be a question. It's a major cross-country interstate that's integral for truckers, locals, commuters, and long-distance traffic. There's no suitable alternate between south and west. I'm not saying the locals shouldn't have their say, but of course you should rebuild it!
Like I said, 49 other states would have identified that from the jump and saved the years and years of hand-wringing about something that should not even be up for debate.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 22, 2021, 01:43:08 PMRemove all freeways around DTLA, I-235 through OKC, I-25 through Denver, I-5 through Seattle, I mean I can go on and on. Hell all we have to do reroute traffic on other roads no big deal. How many people use I-81 a day again and how many people are against it?
I mean, if we're basing off that logic, let's demolish I-35 through Austin. Or I-345 in Dallas. Add I-30 and I-35E to that mix as well. I-10/35 through San Antonio? Demolish it. I-37? Demolish it. I-10, I-45, and I-69 through Houston? Demolish them.
Every urban highway, let's just demolish. If we're going to "value the opinion of residents" who don't even use these highways are through routes let alone use the highway on a daily basis.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 22, 2021, 04:39:36 PM"Only $200m more"? Egads.
Through traffic would have to add 7-10 minutes to follow I-481 and I-690, depending on traffic conditions.
The rebuild plan would only cost around $200 million more than the grid (which is expensive on its own), and given I-481 will inevitably have to be further widened in the future to 6 lanes throughout to make up for the added traffic, that cost will end up being spent anyways. Either that, or eventual construction of a western bypass.
Might as well do it right and rebuild / replace the viaduct. But I guess since some Syracuse residents will be happy, we'll waste it on a grid and even more expenditure later on I-481 widening and/or a western bypass.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 22, 2021, 04:42:04 PMWhat rock have you been living under? Tunnel was considered and thrown out long ago.
What about a tunnel through downtown Syracuse like the Big Dig? Also what benefits could the grid potentially have? And does 7-10 minutes really matter much in a 5 or 6-hour trip?
(I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here)
Quote from: webny99 on August 22, 2021, 03:59:05 PMNot that I disagree with your point because I don't but I wonder in regards to rebuilding urban interstates how many freeways in California would be rebuilt if the big one hit. There would no doubt be a massive campaign to not rebuild certain freeways if they collapsed or needed major rebuilds. Hopefully they won't succeed but California will experience another major damaging earthquake one day.
But when you think about it, it's pretty bizarre that there is even a question of whether to rebuild it.
In 49 other states, it wouldn't even be a question.
Like I said, 49 other states would have identified that from the jump and saved the years and years of hand-wringing about something that should not even be up for debate.
Quote from: Rothman on August 22, 2021, 05:06:53 PMLol I believe I told someone that on this forum before and was scolded by either a mod or another poster I can't remember. That's funny.Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 22, 2021, 04:42:04 PMWhat rock have you been living under? Tunnel was considered and thrown out long ago.
What about a tunnel through downtown Syracuse like the Big Dig? Also what benefits could the grid potentially have? And does 7-10 minutes really matter much in a 5 or 6-hour trip?
(I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here)
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 22, 2021, 04:42:04 PM
What about a tunnel through downtown Syracuse like the Big Dig? Also what benefits could the grid potentially have? And does 7-10 minutes really matter much in a 5 or 6-hour trip?
(I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here)
Quote from: Rothman on August 22, 2021, 05:05:03 PMUnless NYSDOT does the bare minimum (which it appears is the case) and plan for no further improvements, there is going to be an eventual need to widen I-481 to 6 lanes + auxiliary lanes through, plus a reasonable case for constructing a western bypass to replace the movement that I-81 currently provides.
"Only $200m more"? Egads.
For NYSDOT, $200m is a significant amount of money.
I also believe it is closer to $300m more.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 22, 2021, 08:48:19 PM*shrug*Quote from: Rothman on August 22, 2021, 05:05:03 PMUnless NYSDOT does the bare minimum (which it appears is the case) and plan for no further improvements, there is going to be an eventual need to widen I-481 to 6 lanes + auxiliary lanes through, plus a reasonable case for constructing a western bypass to replace the movement that I-81 currently provides.
"Only $200m more"? Egads.
For NYSDOT, $200m is a significant amount of money.
I also believe it is closer to $300m more.
All of those improvements together will likely add up to those additional costs "saved" in the long run, or near it.
There's a strong case for replacing the viaduct when looking at the system as a whole, or at the very least, constructing these other improvements to handle the diverted traffic.
Quote from: Rothman on August 22, 2021, 05:06:53 PMBE NICE.Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 22, 2021, 04:42:04 PMWhat rock have you been living under? Tunnel was considered and thrown out long ago.
What about a tunnel through downtown Syracuse like the Big Dig? Also what benefits could the grid potentially have? And does 7-10 minutes really matter much in a 5 or 6-hour trip?
(I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here)
Quote from: Alps on August 23, 2021, 12:31:50 AMEh it's kinda my fault I read through all 40 pages quicklyQuote from: Rothman on August 22, 2021, 05:06:53 PMBE NICE.Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 22, 2021, 04:42:04 PMWhat rock have you been living under? Tunnel was considered and thrown out long ago.
What about a tunnel through downtown Syracuse like the Big Dig? Also what benefits could the grid potentially have? And does 7-10 minutes really matter much in a 5 or 6-hour trip?
(I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here)
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 22, 2021, 08:48:19 PMQuote from: Rothman on August 22, 2021, 05:05:03 PMUnless NYSDOT does the bare minimum (which it appears is the case) and plan for no further improvements, there is going to be an eventual need to widen I-481 to 6 lanes + auxiliary lanes through, plus a reasonable case for constructing a western bypass to replace the movement that I-81 currently provides.
"Only $200m more"? Egads.
For NYSDOT, $200m is a significant amount of money.
I also believe it is closer to $300m more.
All of those improvements together will likely add up to those additional costs "saved" in the long run, or near it.
There's a strong case for replacing the viaduct when looking at the system as a whole, or at the very least, constructing these other improvements to handle the diverted traffic.
Quote from: seicer on August 23, 2021, 10:19:52 AMThose that have to take the ramps at Adams/Harrison during rush hour would disagree (both NB and SB).Quote from: sprjus4 on August 22, 2021, 08:48:19 PMQuote from: Rothman on August 22, 2021, 05:05:03 PMUnless NYSDOT does the bare minimum (which it appears is the case) and plan for no further improvements, there is going to be an eventual need to widen I-481 to 6 lanes + auxiliary lanes through, plus a reasonable case for constructing a western bypass to replace the movement that I-81 currently provides.
"Only $200m more"? Egads.
For NYSDOT, $200m is a significant amount of money.
I also believe it is closer to $300m more.
All of those improvements together will likely add up to those additional costs "saved" in the long run, or near it.
There's a strong case for replacing the viaduct when looking at the system as a whole, or at the very least, constructing these other improvements to handle the diverted traffic.
I think we are overestimating how little traffic I-81 actually carries. It's never carried high AADT counts north of Syracuse, through the city, or south towards Binghamton. I-481 is well under capacity with the exception of a few choke points by the Thruway. The area is simply not growing or has essentially flat-lined with population.
Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2021, 10:36:46 AMThis is more about local traffic vs long haul, especially transit traffic.Quote from: seicer on August 23, 2021, 10:19:52 AMThose that have to take the ramps at Adams/Harrison during rush hour would disagree (both NB and SB).Quote from: sprjus4 on August 22, 2021, 08:48:19 PMQuote from: Rothman on August 22, 2021, 05:05:03 PMUnless NYSDOT does the bare minimum (which it appears is the case) and plan for no further improvements, there is going to be an eventual need to widen I-481 to 6 lanes + auxiliary lanes through, plus a reasonable case for constructing a western bypass to replace the movement that I-81 currently provides.
"Only $200m more"? Egads.
For NYSDOT, $200m is a significant amount of money.
I also believe it is closer to $300m more.
All of those improvements together will likely add up to those additional costs "saved" in the long run, or near it.
There's a strong case for replacing the viaduct when looking at the system as a whole, or at the very least, constructing these other improvements to handle the diverted traffic.
I think we are overestimating how little traffic I-81 actually carries. It's never carried high AADT counts north of Syracuse, through the city, or south towards Binghamton. I-481 is well under capacity with the exception of a few choke points by the Thruway. The area is simply not growing or has essentially flat-lined with population.
Quote from: kalvado on August 23, 2021, 10:43:42 AMQuote from: Rothman on August 23, 2021, 10:36:46 AMThis is more about local traffic vs long haul, especially transit traffic.Quote from: seicer on August 23, 2021, 10:19:52 AMThose that have to take the ramps at Adams/Harrison during rush hour would disagree (both NB and SB).Quote from: sprjus4 on August 22, 2021, 08:48:19 PMQuote from: Rothman on August 22, 2021, 05:05:03 PMUnless NYSDOT does the bare minimum (which it appears is the case) and plan for no further improvements, there is going to be an eventual need to widen I-481 to 6 lanes + auxiliary lanes through, plus a reasonable case for constructing a western bypass to replace the movement that I-81 currently provides.
"Only $200m more"? Egads.
For NYSDOT, $200m is a significant amount of money.
I also believe it is closer to $300m more.
All of those improvements together will likely add up to those additional costs "saved" in the long run, or near it.
There's a strong case for replacing the viaduct when looking at the system as a whole, or at the very least, constructing these other improvements to handle the diverted traffic.
I think we are overestimating how little traffic I-81 actually carries. It's never carried high AADT counts north of Syracuse, through the city, or south towards Binghamton. I-481 is well under capacity with the exception of a few choke points by the Thruway. The area is simply not growing or has essentially flat-lined with population.
Local traffic may be numerous, but will redistribute and adjust, depending on starting point and destination. Question is how much of that traffic would shift on the new alignment (potentially requiring widening), and who would be just using new options.
Long haul traffic, as we discussed, is not that plentiful - although some directions are affected more than others.
Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2021, 10:50:16 AMQuote from: kalvado on August 23, 2021, 10:43:42 AMQuote from: Rothman on August 23, 2021, 10:36:46 AMThis is more about local traffic vs long haul, especially transit traffic.Quote from: seicer on August 23, 2021, 10:19:52 AMThose that have to take the ramps at Adams/Harrison during rush hour would disagree (both NB and SB).Quote from: sprjus4 on August 22, 2021, 08:48:19 PMQuote from: Rothman on August 22, 2021, 05:05:03 PMUnless NYSDOT does the bare minimum (which it appears is the case) and plan for no further improvements, there is going to be an eventual need to widen I-481 to 6 lanes + auxiliary lanes through, plus a reasonable case for constructing a western bypass to replace the movement that I-81 currently provides.
"Only $200m more"? Egads.
For NYSDOT, $200m is a significant amount of money.
I also believe it is closer to $300m more.
All of those improvements together will likely add up to those additional costs "saved" in the long run, or near it.
There's a strong case for replacing the viaduct when looking at the system as a whole, or at the very least, constructing these other improvements to handle the diverted traffic.
I think we are overestimating how little traffic I-81 actually carries. It's never carried high AADT counts north of Syracuse, through the city, or south towards Binghamton. I-481 is well under capacity with the exception of a few choke points by the Thruway. The area is simply not growing or has essentially flat-lined with population.
Local traffic may be numerous, but will redistribute and adjust, depending on starting point and destination. Question is how much of that traffic would shift on the new alignment (potentially requiring widening), and who would be just using new options.
Long haul traffic, as we discussed, is not that plentiful - although some directions are affected more than others.
The hope is that local traffic will use the new ramps to be built at Crouse and Irving if coming from I-690.
One concern I have is that the parking for Upstate and the like is positioned on Almond Ave and vicinity as is. That will cause a lot of commuters to have to come down from I-690 and make a turn or two to get to the garages. I know city street improvements are coming (including the obvious extension of Irving), but I do wonder how commuting traffic will be on the actual grid itself once things are all said and done.
Quote from: kalvado on August 23, 2021, 10:57:33 AMQuote from: Rothman on August 23, 2021, 10:50:16 AMQuote from: kalvado on August 23, 2021, 10:43:42 AMQuote from: Rothman on August 23, 2021, 10:36:46 AMThis is more about local traffic vs long haul, especially transit traffic.Quote from: seicer on August 23, 2021, 10:19:52 AMThose that have to take the ramps at Adams/Harrison during rush hour would disagree (both NB and SB).Quote from: sprjus4 on August 22, 2021, 08:48:19 PMQuote from: Rothman on August 22, 2021, 05:05:03 PMUnless NYSDOT does the bare minimum (which it appears is the case) and plan for no further improvements, there is going to be an eventual need to widen I-481 to 6 lanes + auxiliary lanes through, plus a reasonable case for constructing a western bypass to replace the movement that I-81 currently provides.
"Only $200m more"? Egads.
For NYSDOT, $200m is a significant amount of money.
I also believe it is closer to $300m more.
All of those improvements together will likely add up to those additional costs "saved" in the long run, or near it.
There's a strong case for replacing the viaduct when looking at the system as a whole, or at the very least, constructing these other improvements to handle the diverted traffic.
I think we are overestimating how little traffic I-81 actually carries. It's never carried high AADT counts north of Syracuse, through the city, or south towards Binghamton. I-481 is well under capacity with the exception of a few choke points by the Thruway. The area is simply not growing or has essentially flat-lined with population.
Local traffic may be numerous, but will redistribute and adjust, depending on starting point and destination. Question is how much of that traffic would shift on the new alignment (potentially requiring widening), and who would be just using new options.
Long haul traffic, as we discussed, is not that plentiful - although some directions are affected more than others.
The hope is that local traffic will use the new ramps to be built at Crouse and Irving if coming from I-690.
One concern I have is that the parking for Upstate and the like is positioned on Almond Ave and vicinity as is. That will cause a lot of commuters to have to come down from I-690 and make a turn or two to get to the garages. I know city street improvements are coming (including the obvious extension of Irving), but I do wonder how commuting traffic will be on the actual grid itself once things are all said and done.
Talking about that... I don't quite know Syracuse enough to understand local traffic. I just realized I am thinking about "local traffic" as "traffic coming from the south along I-81", probably because thats where I drove most. However, road was never busy, and there is a whole lot of nothing on the map.
Where are most populated suburbs located in Syracuse, is that along 690?
Quote from: seicer on August 23, 2021, 10:19:52 AM
I think we are overestimating how little traffic I-81 actually carries. It's never carried high AADT counts north of Syracuse, through the city, or south towards Binghamton. I-481 is well under capacity with the exception of a few choke points by the Thruway. The area is simply not growing or has essentially flat-lined with population.
Quote from: kalvado on August 23, 2021, 10:43:42 AM
This is more about local traffic vs long haul, especially transit traffic.
...
Long haul traffic, as we discussed, is not that plentiful - although some directions are affected more than others.
Quote from: kalvado on August 23, 2021, 10:57:33 AM
I don't quite know Syracuse enough to understand local traffic. I just realized I am thinking about "local traffic" as "traffic coming from the south along I-81", probably because thats where I drove most. However, road was never busy, and there is a whole lot of nothing on the map.
Where are most populated suburbs located in Syracuse, is that along 690?
Quote from: seicer on August 23, 2021, 12:18:28 PMI-81 near Downtown (the part being demolished for a wasteful grid) is 68,999 AADT, I-481 is 46,351 AADT, roughly around the figures I mentioned.
Also not sure where you are getting your numbers.
I can't find anything from NYSDOT that pings I-81 at 70,000 AADT or I-481 at 50,000 AADT.
Quote from: webny99 on August 23, 2021, 12:42:47 PMQuote from: kalvado on August 23, 2021, 10:43:42 AM
This is more about local traffic vs long haul, especially transit traffic.
...
Long haul traffic, as we discussed, is not that plentiful - although some directions are affected more than others.
Not to go down this road again, but I find this narrative about long-haul traffic to be baffling, bordering on incomprehensible. It's a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the entire interstate system to suggest that a 2di at a major crossroads isn't significant for long haul traffic. What road is important for long-distance traffic if not a major cross-country 2di at a major regional crossroads?
Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2021, 12:47:50 PMI thought we agreed that Rochester < - >southbound is THE affected long haul flow. And whatever the future for that flow is, it is not a 6-lane freeway as total long haul volume on I-81 doesn't warrant that. Any widening to 6 lanes in Syracuse would be for local traffic only (until Thruway decides... but that is again a different story)Quote from: webny99 on August 23, 2021, 12:42:47 PMQuote from: kalvado on August 23, 2021, 10:43:42 AM
This is more about local traffic vs long haul, especially transit traffic.
...
Long haul traffic, as we discussed, is not that plentiful - although some directions are affected more than others.
Not to go down this road again, but I find this narrative about long-haul traffic to be baffling, bordering on incomprehensible. It's a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the entire interstate system to suggest that a 2di at a major crossroads isn't significant for long haul traffic. What road is important for long-distance traffic if not a major cross-country 2di at a major regional crossroads?
You have to look at the system as a whole. That reveals why I-81 at I-90 is not as significant as you'd think. You have I-390, I-86/NY 17, I-88, I-690 and I-481 all detracting from its significance.
Quote from: kalvado on August 23, 2021, 01:01:44 PMSure, but that traffic isn't going to all go to I-81 and turn South. They'll likely take I-690 or the other routes I mentioned.Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2021, 12:47:50 PMI thought we agreed that Rochester < - >southbound is THE affected long haul flow. And whatever the future for that flow is, it is not a 6-lane freeway as total long haul volume on I-81 doesn't warrant that. Any widening to 6 lanes in Syracuse would be for local traffic only (until Thruway decides... but that is again a different story)Quote from: webny99 on August 23, 2021, 12:42:47 PMQuote from: kalvado on August 23, 2021, 10:43:42 AM
This is more about local traffic vs long haul, especially transit traffic.
...
Long haul traffic, as we discussed, is not that plentiful - although some directions are affected more than others.
Not to go down this road again, but I find this narrative about long-haul traffic to be baffling, bordering on incomprehensible. It's a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the entire interstate system to suggest that a 2di at a major crossroads isn't significant for long haul traffic. What road is important for long-distance traffic if not a major cross-country 2di at a major regional crossroads?
You have to look at the system as a whole. That reveals why I-81 at I-90 is not as significant as you'd think. You have I-390, I-86/NY 17, I-88, I-690 and I-481 all detracting from its significance.
Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2021, 12:47:50 PM
You have to look at the system as a whole. That reveals why I-81 at I-90 is not as significant as you'd think. You have I-390, I-86/NY 17, I-88, I-690 and I-481 all detracting from its significance.
Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2021, 01:45:28 PMExtra 8 miles in a loop... i can see how people are unhappy about that. Not a deal breaker for the single trip, but someone going daily may feel different.
So...where are you taking this, then? Sounds like there will still be a time savings taking I-690 to I-481 over I-390 to I-86, then.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 23, 2021, 12:43:20 PMQuote from: seicer on August 23, 2021, 12:18:28 PMI-81 near Downtown (the part being demolished for a wasteful grid) is 68,999 AADT, I-481 is 46,351 AADT, roughly around the figures I mentioned.
Also not sure where you are getting your numbers.
I can't find anything from NYSDOT that pings I-81 at 70,000 AADT or I-481 at 50,000 AADT.
Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2021, 01:45:28 PMCurrently a 4 minute, 4 mile trip up I-81. Simple enough.
So...where are you taking this, then? Sounds like there will still be a time savings taking I-690 to I-481 over I-390 to I-86, then.
Quote from: seicer on August 23, 2021, 01:51:11 PMStraight from the NYSDOT AADT map...Quote from: sprjus4 on August 23, 2021, 12:43:20 PMQuote from: seicer on August 23, 2021, 12:18:28 PMI-81 near Downtown (the part being demolished for a wasteful grid) is 68,999 AADT, I-481 is 46,351 AADT, roughly around the figures I mentioned.
Also not sure where you are getting your numbers.
I can't find anything from NYSDOT that pings I-81 at 70,000 AADT or I-481 at 50,000 AADT.
NYSDOT disagrees with your 68,999 AADT numbers for I-81. I'm still not sure where you are getting your figures.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 23, 2021, 01:57:44 PMQuote from: Rothman on August 23, 2021, 01:45:28 PMCurrently a 4 minute, 4 mile trip up I-81. Simple enough.
So...where are you taking this, then? Sounds like there will still be a time savings taking I-690 to I-481 over I-390 to I-86, then.
Now make it 12 minutes, 12 miles. That's what it takes via I-481 and I-690. So look again.
Then factor increased traffic and congestion during peak hours into that figure.
Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2021, 01:45:28 PM
And, with the logistics centers being out near I-690/I-90 and at Carrier Circle, it still doesn't seem likely the movements to and from the south are as you describe. Coming from the south, trucks would take I-81 to I-481 to I-90 to get to Carrier Circle (and the upcoming center at Kirkville Road, come to think of it), or I-81 to I-690 to get to the centers at I-690/I-90. Not seeing why trucks getting to those areas would go through I-81/I-90.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 23, 2021, 03:53:15 PMSome southwest bypass may be a good idea regardless, IMHO. I-390 is a good one, but finger lakes area and southern tier may benefit from more N-S connectivity.
^ So what happens in the future when a western bypass becomes highly desired and an actual need because the new western connection becomes unacceptable? Now we're spending some hundreds of millions on a new freeway facility, acquiring right of way in areas that were previously untouched, etc.
Or congestion grows on I-481 and widening is needed there? There's another some hundred million.
These are things not being considered with the immediate saving of "$300 million" .
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 23, 2021, 01:13:45 PM
At its Spring Meeting, AASHTO approved re-designating I-81 through Syracuse as Business Loop 81, and rerouting I-81 along the eastern leg of I-481. Given that, NYSDOT will eventually have to renumber exits along the eastern leg of I-481 after the signing change to I-81 takes place, and for I-81 north of there as well. So the million dollar question: Given that exits on such a large portion of I-81 will have to be renumbered, will NYSDOT be required to convert exit numbers along the full length of I-81 to mile-based? I would suspect the FHWA might make NYSDOT do so, using the logic, "While we're at it...let's renumber all of the I-81 exits to mile-based."
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 23, 2021, 03:53:15 PM
^ So what happens in the future when a western bypass becomes highly desired and an actual need because the new western connection becomes unacceptable? Now we're spending some hundreds of millions on a new freeway facility, acquiring right of way in areas that were previously untouched, etc.
Or congestion grows on I-481 and widening is needed there? There's another some hundred million.
These are things not being considered with the immediate saving of "$300 million" .
Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2021, 12:53:58 PM
Just a reminder as to where the project stands: There are two remaining viable alternatives, the grid and replacing the viaduct, with NYSDOT choosing the grid as its preferred alternative. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been released and comments are due by September 14th. The public hearing was held last week and neighborhood meetings will be held around Syracuse over the next couple of weeks.
Construction is tentatively set to start in April 2022 (perhaps somewhat quixotically).
So, any desires and wishes outside of these parameters are actually moot at this point.
Quote from: webny99 on August 23, 2021, 10:03:43 PMPretty sure, yes. Might be headed in that direction on another project I'm aware of. However, it takes massive public and political opposition rather than the split situation in Syracuse on I-81.Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2021, 12:53:58 PM
Just a reminder as to where the project stands: There are two remaining viable alternatives, the grid and replacing the viaduct, with NYSDOT choosing the grid as its preferred alternative. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been released and comments are due by September 14th. The public hearing was held last week and neighborhood meetings will be held around Syracuse over the next couple of weeks.
Construction is tentatively set to start in April 2022 (perhaps somewhat quixotically).
So, any desires and wishes outside of these parameters are actually moot at this point.
With this in mind, and out of curiosity ... has there ever been a case historically (in any state, not just NY) where the preferred alternative was NOT what ultimately came to fruition?
Quote from: machias on August 23, 2021, 06:13:23 PMNot just I-81 either. I posted about this a few pages back; from the signage plans in the appendix for the DEIS, it appears that all roads NYSDOT Region 3 maintains that have exit numbers will be converted.Quote from: abqtraveler on August 23, 2021, 01:13:45 PM
At its Spring Meeting, AASHTO approved re-designating I-81 through Syracuse as Business Loop 81, and rerouting I-81 along the eastern leg of I-481. Given that, NYSDOT will eventually have to renumber exits along the eastern leg of I-481 after the signing change to I-81 takes place, and for I-81 north of there as well. So the million dollar question: Given that exits on such a large portion of I-81 will have to be renumbered, will NYSDOT be required to convert exit numbers along the full length of I-81 to mile-based? I would suspect the FHWA might make NYSDOT do so, using the logic, "While we're at it...let's renumber all of the I-81 exits to mile-based."
Yes, NYSDOT Region 3 will be coordinating with Regions 9 and 7 to renumber all the interchanges on I-81 to distance based numbers. I'm thinking they'll fudge current Exit 36 (Pulaski) to Exit 122 for both directions. Might as well start the "exit numbering fudging" discussions. :)
Quote from: yakra on August 24, 2021, 11:24:38 AM
The entirety of the roads, or just within Region 3?
Serious question.
Quote from: webny99 on August 24, 2021, 11:47:55 AMQuote from: yakra on August 24, 2021, 11:24:38 AM
The entirety of the roads, or just within Region 3?
Serious question.
The entirety of I-81, but just within Region 3 for everything else (seeing as nothing else spans beyond Region 3 anyways).
There's actually not much besides I-81: just NY/I-690, NY 481, and presumably the new Business 81 Loop. NY 5 is unnumbered, but it would be nice to see it numbered based on its actual mileage from the PA line.
Quote from: machias on August 24, 2021, 04:41:18 PMQuote from: webny99 on August 24, 2021, 11:47:55 AMQuote from: yakra on August 24, 2021, 11:24:38 AM
The entirety of the roads, or just within Region 3?
Serious question.
The entirety of I-81, but just within Region 3 for everything else (seeing as nothing else spans beyond Region 3 anyways).
There's actually not much besides I-81: just NY/I-690, NY 481, and presumably the new Business 81 Loop. NY 5 is unnumbered, but it would be nice to see it numbered based on its actual mileage from the PA line.
I'd been trying R3 to correct the mileposts on the NY 5 expressway; it has the mileposts from the beginning of the expressway instead of from the PA line. R5 did the same thing on the Skyway, they either removed them or corrected them (I can't remember).
I'm of the belief all interchanges should have a distance based number, regardless of whether the roadway is an interstate or not. R3 has been inconsistent (no exit numbers on NY 690, but exit numbers on NY 481)
Quote from: seicer on August 24, 2021, 07:29:14 PMAn apt summary, speaking from my attendance. The MLK neighborhood meeting will be interesting.
Roundabout worries, Destiny's big reveal, spillover traffic: 6 takeaways from I-81 hearings in Syracuse (https://www.syracuse.com/state/2021/08/roundabout-worries-destinys-big-reveal-spillover-traffic-6-takeaways-from-i-81-hearings-in-syracuse.html)
More than 600 people attended four public hearings last week to comment on a $2 billion plan that would remove part of Interstate 81 from the city and reimagine the highway system here.
Many of those who spoke had common themes. Move the traffic roundabout away from Dr. King Elementary School. Do more to keep vehicles — especially trucks -- from spilling into city neighborhoods and rural roads west of Syracuse. Shrink the boulevard that will replace I-81. Provide more time to allow people to study the massive plan. Prioritize construction jobs for local residents.
--
Key:
- Nobody wants a roundabout that would be 120' from Dr. King Elementary. Some have suggested moving the roundabout to open up the original (and beautiful) entrance to Oakwood Cemetery that would, unfortunately, remain buried in this plan.
- Potential spillover traffic concerns city and town residents
- Grid opponents want (even) more time
- This is about more than a highway
- Destiny USA is showing its hand: "They've hired a former top lawyer for the Federal Highway Administration — the same agency that's leading the I-81 project alongside state DOT."
- Grid-lovers and grid-haters agree on one thing: "Despite their disagreements, most people speaking out about the project agree on this: Nobody wants another Erie Boulevard at the foot of University Hill.With I-81 gone, the state is proposing to rebuild Almond Street as a four-lane boulevard. Plans show a wide median, turn lanes and big sidewalks. It's possible it could take two light changes to walk all the way across it. Even people who want to see the highway gone are worried about this."
Quote from: Rothman on August 24, 2021, 06:45:41 PMQuote from: machias on August 24, 2021, 04:41:18 PMQuote from: webny99 on August 24, 2021, 11:47:55 AMQuote from: yakra on August 24, 2021, 11:24:38 AM
The entirety of the roads, or just within Region 3?
Serious question.
The entirety of I-81, but just within Region 3 for everything else (seeing as nothing else spans beyond Region 3 anyways).
There's actually not much besides I-81: just NY/I-690, NY 481, and presumably the new Business 81 Loop. NY 5 is unnumbered, but it would be nice to see it numbered based on its actual mileage from the PA line.
I'd been trying R3 to correct the mileposts on the NY 5 expressway; it has the mileposts from the beginning of the expressway instead of from the PA line. R5 did the same thing on the Skyway, they either removed them or corrected them (I can't remember).
I'm of the belief all interchanges should have a distance based number, regardless of whether the roadway is an interstate or not. R3 has been inconsistent (no exit numbers on NY 690, but exit numbers on NY 481)
I'd love to see the responses you got and from whom from your "trying."
Quote from: machias on August 24, 2021, 04:41:18 PMNY 5 near the Skyway has milemarkers based on its mileage within Erie County (matching the milepoint system NYSDOT uses for some inventory purposes). Meanwhile, the NY 33 milemarkers are for just the freeway portion, omitting the half mile or so to the west. Given that as well as NY 104 and NY 7, I think milemarkers for just the freeway portion seems to be NYSDOT standard practice.Quote from: webny99 on August 24, 2021, 11:47:55 AMQuote from: yakra on August 24, 2021, 11:24:38 AM
The entirety of the roads, or just within Region 3?
Serious question.
The entirety of I-81, but just within Region 3 for everything else (seeing as nothing else spans beyond Region 3 anyways).
There's actually not much besides I-81: just NY/I-690, NY 481, and presumably the new Business 81 Loop. NY 5 is unnumbered, but it would be nice to see it numbered based on its actual mileage from the PA line.
I'd been trying R3 to correct the mileposts on the NY 5 expressway; it has the mileposts from the beginning of the expressway instead of from the PA line. R5 did the same thing on the Skyway, they either removed them or corrected them (I can't remember).
I'm of the belief all interchanges should have a distance based number, regardless of whether the roadway is an interstate or not. R3 has been inconsistent (no exit numbers on NY 690, but exit numbers on NY 481)
Quote from: machias on August 24, 2021, 08:11:31 PMQuote from: Rothman on August 24, 2021, 06:45:41 PMQuote from: machias on August 24, 2021, 04:41:18 PMQuote from: webny99 on August 24, 2021, 11:47:55 AMQuote from: yakra on August 24, 2021, 11:24:38 AM
The entirety of the roads, or just within Region 3?
Serious question.
The entirety of I-81, but just within Region 3 for everything else (seeing as nothing else spans beyond Region 3 anyways).
There's actually not much besides I-81: just NY/I-690, NY 481, and presumably the new Business 81 Loop. NY 5 is unnumbered, but it would be nice to see it numbered based on its actual mileage from the PA line.
I'd been trying R3 to correct the mileposts on the NY 5 expressway; it has the mileposts from the beginning of the expressway instead of from the PA line. R5 did the same thing on the Skyway, they either removed them or corrected them (I can't remember).
I'm of the belief all interchanges should have a distance based number, regardless of whether the roadway is an interstate or not. R3 has been inconsistent (no exit numbers on NY 690, but exit numbers on NY 481)
I'd love to see the responses you got and from whom from your "trying."
It's been a few years since I contacted anyone at NYSDOT (since I don't live in New York anymore), but Region 3 was the most pleasant in that regard. We went back and forth in the early 2000s for "Albany Buffalo" to appear on the guide panels approaching the Thruway on the Syracuse area interstates, and they decided to do it with the following sign rehabs. I pointed out the mileposts on NY 5 being wrong, and the engineer that contacted me said "you're absolutely right" but never followed up on it. They also told me that NYSDOT didn't require interchange numbers on non-interstates. Probably the last thing we talked about was the distance based numbering for the Syracuse rebuild and that was before they decided on the grid, but it's been at least five years since that discussion.
Region 2 was tolerant but cooperative, I knew folks that worked in Utica and I actually interviewed there. They knew who I was before the interview. My bugging them probably didn't help the situation.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 03:03:24 PMI like how NYSDOT is mentioned and quoted as if it were some faceless entity.
Public comment period has closed:
https://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/large-number-of-public-comments-delays-release-of-final-i-81-design/
Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 03:09:50 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 03:03:24 PMI like how NYSDOT is mentioned and quoted as if it were some faceless entity.
Public comment period has closed:
https://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/large-number-of-public-comments-delays-release-of-final-i-81-design/
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 04:46:34 PMNot sure that is possible given the multiple thousands that were received.
I'd like to see a summary of the comments.
Quote from: webny99 on October 22, 2021, 04:09:14 PMHyperbole. It'll be fine.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 03:09:50 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 03:03:24 PMI like how NYSDOT is mentioned and quoted as if it were some faceless entity.
Public comment period has closed:
https://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/large-number-of-public-comments-delays-release-of-final-i-81-design/
If the viaduct teardown really does proceed, I would consider "faceless entity" extremely complimentary.
I am going to have to stay focused on more positive projects, like the CSVT and I-80/I-99 rebuild, because this one is really dangerous for one's mental health.
Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:25:32 PMQuote from: webny99 on October 22, 2021, 04:09:14 PMHyperbole. It'll be fine.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 03:09:50 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 03:03:24 PMI like how NYSDOT is mentioned and quoted as if it were some faceless entity.
Public comment period has closed:
https://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/large-number-of-public-comments-delays-release-of-final-i-81-design/
If the viaduct teardown really does proceed, I would consider "faceless entity" extremely complimentary.
I am going to have to stay focused on more positive projects, like the CSVT and I-80/I-99 rebuild, because this one is really dangerous for one's mental health.
Quote from: TheDon102 on October 22, 2021, 07:30:23 PMSo? If they're not needed or there are benefits from doing so, no problem.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:25:32 PMQuote from: webny99 on October 22, 2021, 04:09:14 PMHyperbole. It'll be fine.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 03:09:50 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 03:03:24 PMI like how NYSDOT is mentioned and quoted as if it were some faceless entity.
Public comment period has closed:
https://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/large-number-of-public-comments-delays-release-of-final-i-81-design/
If the viaduct teardown really does proceed, I would consider "faceless entity" extremely complimentary.
I am going to have to stay focused on more positive projects, like the CSVT and I-80/I-99 rebuild, because this one is really dangerous for one's mental health.
New York is already woefully inadequate in its Interstate Network. The removal of 81 through Syracuse will 100% be used to teardown other freeways across the state.
Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:24:46 PMI'll try:Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 04:46:34 PMNot sure that is possible given the multiple thousands that were received.
I'd like to see a summary of the comments.
Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:34:40 PMQuote from: TheDon102 on October 22, 2021, 07:30:23 PMSo? If they're not needed or there are benefits from doing so, no problem.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:25:32 PMQuote from: webny99 on October 22, 2021, 04:09:14 PMHyperbole. It'll be fine.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 03:09:50 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 03:03:24 PMI like how NYSDOT is mentioned and quoted as if it were some faceless entity.
Public comment period has closed:
https://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/large-number-of-public-comments-delays-release-of-final-i-81-design/
If the viaduct teardown really does proceed, I would consider "faceless entity" extremely complimentary.
I am going to have to stay focused on more positive projects, like the CSVT and I-80/I-99 rebuild, because this one is really dangerous for one's mental health.
New York is already woefully inadequate in its Interstate Network. The removal of 81 through Syracuse will 100% be used to teardown other freeways across the state.
Quote from: TheDon102 on October 22, 2021, 07:41:37 PMThe Sheridan's already gone...to much...shrugging.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:34:40 PMQuote from: TheDon102 on October 22, 2021, 07:30:23 PMSo? If they're not needed or there are benefits from doing so, no problem.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:25:32 PMQuote from: webny99 on October 22, 2021, 04:09:14 PMHyperbole. It'll be fine.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 03:09:50 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 03:03:24 PMI like how NYSDOT is mentioned and quoted as if it were some faceless entity.
Public comment period has closed:
https://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/large-number-of-public-comments-delays-release-of-final-i-81-design/
If the viaduct teardown really does proceed, I would consider "faceless entity" extremely complimentary.
I am going to have to stay focused on more positive projects, like the CSVT and I-80/I-99 rebuild, because this one is really dangerous for one's mental health.
New York is already woefully inadequate in its Interstate Network. The removal of 81 through Syracuse will 100% be used to teardown other freeways across the state.
You can probably find some benefit for removing every freeway in the state, that doesn't justify it's removal. Name one freeway removal that will actually benefit New York
Quote from: TheDon102 on October 22, 2021, 07:30:23 PMIt already is, and the viaduct isn't even down yet. Every person pushing the removal of I-787 in Albany cities I-81. And it time it won't just be in state, but nation-wide. I think it's safe to say that this is one of the most significant freeway removals in the entire history of the country - none have been on such a major route in recent memory, if ever.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:25:32 PMQuote from: webny99 on October 22, 2021, 04:09:14 PMHyperbole. It'll be fine.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 03:09:50 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 03:03:24 PMI like how NYSDOT is mentioned and quoted as if it were some faceless entity.
Public comment period has closed:
https://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/large-number-of-public-comments-delays-release-of-final-i-81-design/
If the viaduct teardown really does proceed, I would consider "faceless entity" extremely complimentary.
I am going to have to stay focused on more positive projects, like the CSVT and I-80/I-99 rebuild, because this one is really dangerous for one's mental health.
New York is already woefully inadequate in its Interstate Network. The removal of 81 through Syracuse will 100% be used to teardown other freeways across the state.
Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:24:46 PMWell, it is possible just a lot of work. I'll probably go through some of them. Hell if I get bored enough while waiting to start my job I might just give it a shot. It really should be hard just tedious work. Either pro freeway or pro removal or unrelated.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 04:46:34 PMNot sure that is possible given the multiple thousands that were received.
I'd like to see a summary of the comments.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 11:39:37 PMNot experienced with public comments, are you. Just at the public hearings, the comments were much more nuanced: "Since we're proceeding with the grid, please do X," where X is any number of things, just for one example.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:24:46 PMWell, it is possible just a lot of work. I'll probably go through some of them. Hell if I get bored enough while waiting to start my job I might just give it a shot. It really should be hard just tedious work. Either pro freeway or pro removal or unrelated.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 04:46:34 PMNot sure that is possible given the multiple thousands that were received.
I'd like to see a summary of the comments.
Quote from: Rothman on October 23, 2021, 12:01:57 AMI've been looking at them for 10 years as a hobby. I'd lump those who say things like "since were preceding with the grid" as those who basically support the grid which they do now.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 11:39:37 PMNot experienced with public comments, are you. Just at the public hearings, the comments were much more nuanced: "Since we're proceeding with the grid, please do X," where X is any number of things, just for one example.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:24:46 PMWell, it is possible just a lot of work. I'll probably go through some of them. Hell if I get bored enough while waiting to start my job I might just give it a shot. It really should be hard just tedious work. Either pro freeway or pro removal or unrelated.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 04:46:34 PMNot sure that is possible given the multiple thousands that were received.
I'd like to see a summary of the comments.
NYSDOT has to respond to them all; I'd just wait for that product.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 23, 2021, 12:51:58 AMA stretch of an assumption.Quote from: Rothman on October 23, 2021, 12:01:57 AMI've been looking at them for 10 years as a hobby. I'd lump those who say things like "since were preceding with the grid" as those who basically support the grid which they do now.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 11:39:37 PMNot experienced with public comments, are you. Just at the public hearings, the comments were much more nuanced: "Since we're proceeding with the grid, please do X," where X is any number of things, just for one example.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:24:46 PMWell, it is possible just a lot of work. I'll probably go through some of them. Hell if I get bored enough while waiting to start my job I might just give it a shot. It really should be hard just tedious work. Either pro freeway or pro removal or unrelated.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 04:46:34 PMNot sure that is possible given the multiple thousands that were received.
I'd like to see a summary of the comments.
NYSDOT has to respond to them all; I'd just wait for that product.
Quote from: Rothman on October 23, 2021, 10:42:11 AMEither way it gives an idea of the comments. You really seem to be against any and all notions that the grid idea just sucks and is being pushed as part of an agenda not that the richest country in the world can't do what tons of other developing countries are doing.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 23, 2021, 12:51:58 AMA stretch of an assumption.Quote from: Rothman on October 23, 2021, 12:01:57 AMI've been looking at them for 10 years as a hobby. I'd lump those who say things like "since were preceding with the grid" as those who basically support the grid which they do now.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 11:39:37 PMNot experienced with public comments, are you. Just at the public hearings, the comments were much more nuanced: "Since we're proceeding with the grid, please do X," where X is any number of things, just for one example.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:24:46 PMWell, it is possible just a lot of work. I'll probably go through some of them. Hell if I get bored enough while waiting to start my job I might just give it a shot. It really should be hard just tedious work. Either pro freeway or pro removal or unrelated.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 04:46:34 PMNot sure that is possible given the multiple thousands that were received.
I'd like to see a summary of the comments.
NYSDOT has to respond to them all; I'd just wait for that product.
Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 09:46:50 PMQuote from: TheDon102 on October 22, 2021, 07:41:37 PMThe Sheridan's already gone...to much...shrugging.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:34:40 PMQuote from: TheDon102 on October 22, 2021, 07:30:23 PMSo? If they're not needed or there are benefits from doing so, no problem.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:25:32 PMQuote from: webny99 on October 22, 2021, 04:09:14 PMHyperbole. It'll be fine.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 03:09:50 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 03:03:24 PMI like how NYSDOT is mentioned and quoted as if it were some faceless entity.
Public comment period has closed:
https://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/large-number-of-public-comments-delays-release-of-final-i-81-design/
If the viaduct teardown really does proceed, I would consider "faceless entity" extremely complimentary.
I am going to have to stay focused on more positive projects, like the CSVT and I-80/I-99 rebuild, because this one is really dangerous for one's mental health.
New York is already woefully inadequate in its Interstate Network. The removal of 81 through Syracuse will 100% be used to teardown other freeways across the state.
You can probably find some benefit for removing every freeway in the state, that doesn't justify it's removal. Name one freeway removal that will actually benefit New York
Quote from: TheDon102 on October 23, 2021, 11:25:22 AMIf a bear is in the woods and a blue tree falls, do you eat an avocado?Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 09:46:50 PMQuote from: TheDon102 on October 22, 2021, 07:41:37 PMThe Sheridan's already gone...to much...shrugging.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:34:40 PMQuote from: TheDon102 on October 22, 2021, 07:30:23 PMSo? If they're not needed or there are benefits from doing so, no problem.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:25:32 PMQuote from: webny99 on October 22, 2021, 04:09:14 PMHyperbole. It'll be fine.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 03:09:50 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 03:03:24 PMI like how NYSDOT is mentioned and quoted as if it were some faceless entity.
Public comment period has closed:
https://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/large-number-of-public-comments-delays-release-of-final-i-81-design/
If the viaduct teardown really does proceed, I would consider "faceless entity" extremely complimentary.
I am going to have to stay focused on more positive projects, like the CSVT and I-80/I-99 rebuild, because this one is really dangerous for one's mental health.
New York is already woefully inadequate in its Interstate Network. The removal of 81 through Syracuse will 100% be used to teardown other freeways across the state.
You can probably find some benefit for removing every freeway in the state, that doesn't justify it's removal. Name one freeway removal that will actually benefit New York
If the sheredian was actually completed as intended and not some aborted freeway that doesn't do much anyway would it have been removed?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 23, 2021, 10:54:20 AMQuote from: Rothman on October 23, 2021, 10:42:11 AMEither way it gives an idea of the comments. You really seem to be against any and all notions that the grid idea just sucks and is being pushed as part of an agenda not that the richest country in the world can't do what tons of other developing countries are doing.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 23, 2021, 12:51:58 AMA stretch of an assumption.Quote from: Rothman on October 23, 2021, 12:01:57 AMI've been looking at them for 10 years as a hobby. I'd lump those who say things like "since were preceding with the grid" as those who basically support the grid which they do now.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 11:39:37 PMNot experienced with public comments, are you. Just at the public hearings, the comments were much more nuanced: "Since we're proceeding with the grid, please do X," where X is any number of things, just for one example.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:24:46 PMWell, it is possible just a lot of work. I'll probably go through some of them. Hell if I get bored enough while waiting to start my job I might just give it a shot. It really should be hard just tedious work. Either pro freeway or pro removal or unrelated.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 04:46:34 PMNot sure that is possible given the multiple thousands that were received.
I'd like to see a summary of the comments.
NYSDOT has to respond to them all; I'd just wait for that product.
I will make an assumption and say there are likely a lot of comments like mine that make it very clear the grid is the wrong way forward and I-81 needs to remain either as a tunnel or an elevated viaduct. If you can't fathom the 10 billion dollars to tunnel it fine I'll compromise and support the viaduct, even if that means substandard design as that is still better than a surface street.
Quote from: Rothman on October 23, 2021, 11:31:36 AMQuote from: TheDon102 on October 23, 2021, 11:25:22 AMIf a bear is in the woods and a blue tree falls, do you eat an avocado?Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 09:46:50 PMQuote from: TheDon102 on October 22, 2021, 07:41:37 PMThe Sheridan's already gone...to much...shrugging.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:34:40 PMQuote from: TheDon102 on October 22, 2021, 07:30:23 PMSo? If they're not needed or there are benefits from doing so, no problem.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:25:32 PMQuote from: webny99 on October 22, 2021, 04:09:14 PMHyperbole. It'll be fine.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 03:09:50 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 03:03:24 PMI like how NYSDOT is mentioned and quoted as if it were some faceless entity.
Public comment period has closed:
https://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/large-number-of-public-comments-delays-release-of-final-i-81-design/
If the viaduct teardown really does proceed, I would consider "faceless entity" extremely complimentary.
I am going to have to stay focused on more positive projects, like the CSVT and I-80/I-99 rebuild, because this one is really dangerous for one's mental health.
New York is already woefully inadequate in its Interstate Network. The removal of 81 through Syracuse will 100% be used to teardown other freeways across the state.
You can probably find some benefit for removing every freeway in the state, that doesn't justify it's removal. Name one freeway removal that will actually benefit New York
If the sheredian was actually completed as intended and not some aborted freeway that doesn't do much anyway would it have been removed?
Quote from: Rothman on October 23, 2021, 11:31:36 AMQuote from: TheDon102 on October 23, 2021, 11:25:22 AMIf a bear is in the woods and a blue tree falls, do you eat an avocado?
If the sheredian was actually completed as intended and not some aborted freeway that doesn't do much anyway would it have been removed?
Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:25:32 PMQuote from: webny99 on October 22, 2021, 04:09:14 PMHyperbole. It'll be fine.
If the viaduct teardown really does proceed, I would consider "faceless entity" extremely complimentary.
I am going to have to stay focused on more positive projects, like the CSVT and I-80/I-99 rebuild, because this one is really dangerous for one's mental health.
Quote from: Rothman on October 23, 2021, 11:37:42 AMI'm not even sure I'll do a summary yet I may start and get burnt out. 3000+ comments isn't a small amount of change. If I do I'll report as accurately as possible because I am genuinely curious to see how those interested really think.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 23, 2021, 10:54:20 AMQuote from: Rothman on October 23, 2021, 10:42:11 AMEither way it gives an idea of the comments. You really seem to be against any and all notions that the grid idea just sucks and is being pushed as part of an agenda not that the richest country in the world can't do what tons of other developing countries are doing.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 23, 2021, 12:51:58 AMA stretch of an assumption.Quote from: Rothman on October 23, 2021, 12:01:57 AMI've been looking at them for 10 years as a hobby. I'd lump those who say things like "since were preceding with the grid" as those who basically support the grid which they do now.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 11:39:37 PMNot experienced with public comments, are you. Just at the public hearings, the comments were much more nuanced: "Since we're proceeding with the grid, please do X," where X is any number of things, just for one example.Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 07:24:46 PMWell, it is possible just a lot of work. I'll probably go through some of them. Hell if I get bored enough while waiting to start my job I might just give it a shot. It really should be hard just tedious work. Either pro freeway or pro removal or unrelated.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2021, 04:46:34 PMNot sure that is possible given the multiple thousands that were received.
I'd like to see a summary of the comments.
NYSDOT has to respond to them all; I'd just wait for that product.
I will make an assumption and say there are likely a lot of comments like mine that make it very clear the grid is the wrong way forward and I-81 needs to remain either as a tunnel or an elevated viaduct. If you can't fathom the 10 billion dollars to tunnel it fine I'll compromise and support the viaduct, even if that means substandard design as that is still better than a surface street.
You mean, either way it could misconstrue the comments.
At this point, I am not sure where my opinion lies -- probably just resignation that the community grid will be a reality, rather than enthusiasm over the idea. I certainly and personally disagree with the idea that it will have some sort of restorative justice for the neighborhoods obliterated decades ago -- the area has just changed too much. You would have to demolish and relocate all the medical and commercial facilities now in the area and totally rebuild those neighborhoods...and the new residential properties would probably be considered gentrification in the end. So, no one wins.
We'll see how your summary, which sounds like it is already set up to be biased towards your own opinion, matches up with the official accounts.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 23, 2021, 03:47:25 PM
I'm not even sure I'll do a summary yet I may start and get burnt out. 3000+ comments isn't a small amount of change. If I do I'll report as accurately as possible because I am genuinely curious to see how those interested really think.
Quote from: 1 on October 23, 2021, 03:55:41 PM"Grid" specifically doesn't say much but a statement like "since we're building the grid" seems to be a decent indicator.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 23, 2021, 03:47:25 PM
I'm not even sure I'll do a summary yet I may start and get burnt out. 3000+ comments isn't a small amount of change. If I do I'll report as accurately as possible because I am genuinely curious to see how those interested really think.
Read 50 comments. Search for the keywords that keep appearing and note how many results you get for each keyword.
Choose your keywords carefully; "grid" doesn't tell you whether the person is for or against it.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 23, 2021, 05:06:08 PMToo longQuote from: 1 on October 23, 2021, 03:55:41 PM"Grid" specifically doesn't say much but a statement like "since we're building the grid" seems to be a decent indicator.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 23, 2021, 03:47:25 PM
I'm not even sure I'll do a summary yet I may start and get burnt out. 3000+ comments isn't a small amount of change. If I do I'll report as accurately as possible because I am genuinely curious to see how those interested really think.
Read 50 comments. Search for the keywords that keep appearing and note how many results you get for each keyword.
Choose your keywords carefully; "grid" doesn't tell you whether the person is for or against it.
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.
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.
Quote from: webny99 on October 23, 2021, 08:32:25 PMAn 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.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.
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.
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.
Quote
The Interstate 81 (I-81) project area serves as an essential travel corridor for the
Central New York Region, especially the downtown Syracuse area, and has been
highlighted by both President Biden and Secretary Buttigieg as reflective of the
Administration's priorities on equity, economic opportunity, and transforming
neighborhoods left behind.
This project will address the I-81 geometric, structural, and safety concerns of the
viaduct by replacing the elevated structure with a community grid that would
disperse traffic along local north-south streets. It will create a new high-speed
business loop and reconnect neighborhoods severed by construction of the
interstate, thereby creating opportunities for mixed-use residential and commercial
development. The project would also construct safe pedestrian and bicycle access
for users of all ages and abilities within the downtown core.
Building on the I-81 project, Connecting the New 15th Ward is a plan to reimagine
the adjacent 118-acre East Adams neighborhood, where over 1,000 units of public
housing are currently located. The revitalization project would create a mixed-use,
mixed-income neighborhood where families – especially children – can thrive and
have genuine opportunities for successful futures.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 09, 2022, 08:54:14 PM
Looks like Syracuse will be stuck with a bottleneck of a boulevard through downtown. I wish they could trench it or something. Will I-81 be converted to mile based numbering once it is rerouted on the existing I-481?
Quote from: machias on January 09, 2022, 09:14:17 PMThat's what I saw when I was looking at some signing plans in the DDR/DEIS (starting around page 203 of Appendix A-6): https://parsonsecmpublic.s3.amazonaws.com/I-81-DEIS/07-2021/Appendix%20A-6_Access%20Modification%20Report_July%202021.pdfQuote from: BlueOutback7 on January 09, 2022, 08:54:14 PM
Looks like Syracuse will be stuck with a bottleneck of a boulevard through downtown. I wish they could trench it or something. Will I-81 be converted to mile based numbering once it is rerouted on the existing I-481?
It looks like I-81, I-481/NY 481, and BL 81 (what a dumb designation) will all have distance based exit numbering. I believe I-690/NY 690 will be converted at the same time, but I'm not certain about that.
Quote from: machias on January 09, 2022, 09:14:17 PMQuote from: BlueOutback7 on January 09, 2022, 08:54:14 PM
Looks like Syracuse will be stuck with a bottleneck of a boulevard through downtown. I wish they could trench it or something. Will I-81 be converted to mile based numbering once it is rerouted on the existing I-481?
It looks like I-81, I-481/NY 481, and BL 81 (what a dumb designation) will all have distance based exit numbering. I believe I-690/NY 690 will be converted at the same time, but I'm not certain about that.
Quotea new high-speed business loopLOL. Compared to?
Quote from: yakra on January 10, 2022, 12:51:37 PMQuotea new high-speed business loopLOL. Compared to?
Quote from: yakra on January 10, 2022, 12:51:37 PMHm. High-speed BL with an at-grade in the middle...Quotea new high-speed business loopLOL. Compared to?
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 10, 2022, 12:57:09 PMQuote from: yakra on January 10, 2022, 12:51:37 PMQuotea new high-speed business loopLOL. Compared to?
I was thinking that I-81BL would be somewhat similar to I-95BL in Fayetteville, NC (freeway on both ends, boulevard in middle).
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 11, 2022, 08:02:32 AMQuote from: 74/171FAN on January 10, 2022, 12:57:09 PMQuote from: yakra on January 10, 2022, 12:51:37 PMQuotea new high-speed business loopLOL. Compared to?
I was thinking that I-81BL would be somewhat similar to I-95BL in Fayetteville, NC (freeway on both ends, boulevard in middle).
It actually would be kind of similar to BL I-95 in Fayetteville. But wouldn't this be also called 81? In other words, you would basically have two 81's? This is why there are barely any business Interstates in the Northeast other than BL I-83 and BL I-376. "Take 81 south and get off at 81."
Quote from: yakra on January 11, 2022, 03:17:34 PM
^ 3DI <-> 3DNY <-> 3DI, all the same number?
Quote from: Jim on January 11, 2022, 03:41:22 PMI would be OK with entire southern portion being 3DNYQuote from: yakra on January 11, 2022, 03:17:34 PM
^ 3DI <-> 3DNY <-> 3DI, all the same number?
Yes, admittedly all of the others have the 3DNY on just one end of a 3DI (I think), but this seems way better to me than BL I-81.
Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2022, 08:41:35 PM
Those who have been hoping that Hochul will put a stop to this project were surely very disappointed in the state of the state speech in which she mentioned removing I-81 and other roads. From the accompanying policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf):Quote
The Interstate 81 (I-81) project area serves as an essential travel corridor for the
Central New York Region, especially the downtown Syracuse area, and has been
highlighted by both President Biden and Secretary Buttigieg as reflective of the
Administration's priorities on equity, economic opportunity, and transforming
neighborhoods left behind.
This project will address the I-81 geometric, structural, and safety concerns of the
viaduct by replacing the elevated structure with a community grid that would
disperse traffic along local north-south streets. It will create a new high-speed
business loop and reconnect neighborhoods severed by construction of the
interstate, thereby creating opportunities for mixed-use residential and commercial
development. The project would also construct safe pedestrian and bicycle access
for users of all ages and abilities within the downtown core.
Building on the I-81 project, Connecting the New 15th Ward is a plan to reimagine
the adjacent 118-acre East Adams neighborhood, where over 1,000 units of public
housing are currently located. The revitalization project would create a mixed-use,
mixed-income neighborhood where families – especially children – can thrive and
have genuine opportunities for successful futures.
Quote from: ixnay on January 12, 2022, 09:06:47 AMI am surprised that there are those that still think there's a chance that the Community Grid may not happen. It's essentially been set in stone for quite a while.Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2022, 08:41:35 PM
Those who have been hoping that Hochul will put a stop to this project were surely very disappointed in the state of the state speech in which she mentioned removing I-81 and other roads. From the accompanying policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf):Quote
TheInterstate81(I-81)projectareaservesasanessentialtravelcorridorforthe
CentralNewYorkRegion,especiallythedowntownSyracusearea,andhasbeen
highlightedbybothPresidentBidenandSecretaryButtigiegasreflectiveofthe
Administration'sprioritiesonequity,economicopportunity,andtransforming
neighborhoodsleftbehind.
ThisprojectwilladdresstheI-81geometric,structural,andsafetyconcernsofthe
viaductbyreplacingtheelevatedstructurewithacommunitygridthatwould
dispersetrafficalonglocalnorth-southstreets.Itwillcreateanewhigh-speed
businessloopandreconnectneighborhoodsseveredbyconstructionofthe
interstate,therebycreatingopportunitiesformixed-useresidentialandcommercial
development.Theprojectwouldalsoconstructsafepedestrianandbicycleaccess
forusersofallagesandabilitieswithinthedowntowncore.
BuildingontheI-81project,ConnectingtheNew15thWardisaplantoreimagine
theadjacent118-acreEastAdamsneighborhood,whereover1,000unitsofpublic
housingarecurrentlylocated.Therevitalizationprojectwouldcreateamixed-use,
mixed-incomeneighborhoodwherefamilies– especiallychildren– canthriveand
havegenuineopportunitiesforsuccessfulfutures.
It's happening, folks.
Quote from: Jim on January 11, 2022, 03:41:22 PMI can't imagine the FHWA signing off on 2 separate same-numbered 3DI spurs in a state.Quote from: yakra on January 11, 2022, 03:17:34 PMYes, admittedly all of the others have the 3DNY on just one end of a 3DI (I think), but this seems way better to me than BL I-81.
^ 3DI <-> 3DNY <-> 3DI, all the same number?
Quote from: kalvado on January 11, 2022, 03:56:05 PMIAWTP. Not 100% the same thing, but PA378 anyone?
I would be OK with entire southern portion being 3DNY
Quote from: yakra on January 12, 2022, 03:52:01 PMQuote from: Jim on January 11, 2022, 03:41:22 PMI can't imagine the FHWA signing off on 2 separate same-numbered 3DI spurs in a state.Quote from: yakra on January 11, 2022, 03:17:34 PMYes, admittedly all of the others have the 3DNY on just one end of a 3DI (I think), but this seems way better to me than BL I-81.
^ 3DI <-> 3DNY <-> 3DI, all the same number?Quote from: kalvado on January 11, 2022, 03:56:05 PMIAWTP. Not 100% the same thing, but PA378 anyone?
I would be OK with entire southern portion being 3DNY
Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2022, 11:57:15 AMThough many would disagree that I-81 through downtown Syracuse would be considered a bad decision.
^ This hasn't been "all of a sudden." This is decades in the making and is in part the result of poor decisions made when building these freeways to begin with.
Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2022, 11:57:15 AMIt can go even further to the roots of Syracuse - a crossroad city brought to life by Erie canal.
^ This hasn't been "all of a sudden." This is decades in the making and is in part the result of poor decisions made when building these freeways to begin with.
Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2022, 12:16:44 PMViaduct is not the critical part. Tight geometry - meaning things like bricks from collapsing buildings falling on a highway https://www.syracuse.com/news/2010/03/crumbling_syracuse_building_ke.html (https://www.syracuse.com/news/2010/03/crumbling_syracuse_building_ke.html) - is the major factor preventing rebuild as-is and is the most critical part, IMHO.
^ Many would disagree, but the fact remains that making that part of 81 a viaduct has contributed to the current mess.
Quote from: kalvado on January 13, 2022, 12:21:53 PMThat was a one-off incident.Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2022, 12:16:44 PMViaduct is not the critical part. Tight geometry - meaning things like bricks from collapsing buildings falling on a highway https://www.syracuse.com/news/2010/03/crumbling_syracuse_building_ke.html (https://www.syracuse.com/news/2010/03/crumbling_syracuse_building_ke.html) - is the major factor preventing rebuild as-is and is the most critical part, IMHO.
^ Many would disagree, but the fact remains that making that part of 81 a viaduct has contributed to the current mess.
Quote from: kalvado on January 13, 2022, 12:19:05 PMI don't know if Syracuse is nosediving. Healthcare industry has taken hold and is expanding. Syracuse University and other colleges are still major employers.Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2022, 11:57:15 AMIt can go even further to the roots of Syracuse - a crossroad city brought to life by Erie canal.
^ This hasn't been "all of a sudden." This is decades in the making and is in part the result of poor decisions made when building these freeways to begin with.
With decay of rust belt in general and canal transportation in particular, is there a good reason for the city co continue the existence? Or it is time to sunset? Too many places are actually in same situation.
I am actually pretty curious - once I-81 is gone and Syracuse continues - if not accelerates - inevitable nosedive.. What would people be saying then?
Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2022, 12:28:53 PMOne off event which, however, shows how tight things are in there. My bet is had ROW been available, by now the viaduct would be rebuilt without much discussion.Quote from: kalvado on January 13, 2022, 12:21:53 PMThat was a one-off incident.Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2022, 12:16:44 PMViaduct is not the critical part. Tight geometry - meaning things like bricks from collapsing buildings falling on a highway https://www.syracuse.com/news/2010/03/crumbling_syracuse_building_ke.html (https://www.syracuse.com/news/2010/03/crumbling_syracuse_building_ke.html) - is the major factor preventing rebuild as-is and is the most critical part, IMHO.
^ Many would disagree, but the fact remains that making that part of 81 a viaduct has contributed to the current mess.
Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2022, 12:31:38 PMMaybe I am overly pessimistic; there is definitely some things happening. We were talking about all that upstream, no real need to reiterate. But I don't see things in Syracuse becoming better than they are. Easily growing worse.Quote from: kalvado on January 13, 2022, 12:19:05 PMI don't know if Syracuse is nosediving. Healthcare industry has taken hold and is expanding. Syracuse University and other colleges are still major employers.Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2022, 11:57:15 AMIt can go even further to the roots of Syracuse - a crossroad city brought to life by Erie canal.
^ This hasn't been "all of a sudden." This is decades in the making and is in part the result of poor decisions made when building these freeways to begin with.
With decay of rust belt in general and canal transportation in particular, is there a good reason for the city co continue the existence? Or it is time to sunset? Too many places are actually in same situation.
I am actually pretty curious - once I-81 is gone and Syracuse continues - if not accelerates - inevitable nosedive.. What would people be saying then?
What befuddles me has been the recent proliferation of luxury apartment building in downtown -- plans that extended from before the pandemic. I can't figure out who is renting them. You also have the Franklin Square bourgeois area.
The Crucible plant is still open...
I'd call Syracuse "treading water."
Quote from: kalvado on January 13, 2022, 12:34:56 PMThat is a huge if the size of Montana.Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2022, 12:28:53 PMOne off event which, however, shows how tight things are in there. My bet is had ROW been available, by now the viaduct would be rebuilt without much discussion.Quote from: kalvado on January 13, 2022, 12:21:53 PMThat was a one-off incident.Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2022, 12:16:44 PMViaduct is not the critical part. Tight geometry - meaning things like bricks from collapsing buildings falling on a highway https://www.syracuse.com/news/2010/03/crumbling_syracuse_building_ke.html (https://www.syracuse.com/news/2010/03/crumbling_syracuse_building_ke.html) - is the major factor preventing rebuild as-is and is the most critical part, IMHO.
^ Many would disagree, but the fact remains that making that part of 81 a viaduct has contributed to the current mess.
Quote from: kalvado on January 13, 2022, 12:41:46 PMNah, not easily growing worse. There is a lot of change happening downtown. It's like the openings and closures cancel each other out, while the major vacancies remain constant.Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2022, 12:31:38 PMMaybe I am overly pessimistic; there is definitely some things happening. We were talking about all that upstream, no real need to reiterate. But I don't see things in Syracuse becoming better than they are. Easily growing worse.Quote from: kalvado on January 13, 2022, 12:19:05 PMI don't know if Syracuse is nosediving. Healthcare industry has taken hold and is expanding. Syracuse University and other colleges are still major employers.Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2022, 11:57:15 AMIt can go even further to the roots of Syracuse - a crossroad city brought to life by Erie canal.
^ This hasn't been "all of a sudden." This is decades in the making and is in part the result of poor decisions made when building these freeways to begin with.
With decay of rust belt in general and canal transportation in particular, is there a good reason for the city co continue the existence? Or it is time to sunset? Too many places are actually in same situation.
I am actually pretty curious - once I-81 is gone and Syracuse continues - if not accelerates - inevitable nosedive.. What would people be saying then?
What befuddles me has been the recent proliferation of luxury apartment building in downtown -- plans that extended from before the pandemic. I can't figure out who is renting them. You also have the Franklin Square bourgeois area.
The Crucible plant is still open...
I'd call Syracuse "treading water."
Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2022, 02:28:35 PMWell, you may compare that to 787 rebuilt.
That is a huge if the size of Montana.
Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2022, 02:29:48 PMAnd overall it's a slow rot. What Syracuse actually need is a ton of good jobs, in addition to existing bundle. Restaurants and apartments are not really cutting it.
Nah, not easily growing worse. There is a lot of change happening downtown. It's like the openings and closures cancel each other out, while the major vacancies remain constant.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 13, 2022, 11:38:52 AM
What gets me is this freeway removal purge taking place all of a sudden. It's like develop the rural areas to bring more traffic and get rid of the much needed freeways needed for the region that carries the extra burden brought on by the greedy land developers.
Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2022, 12:16:44 PMI hate to beat a dead horse here but there was a tunnel option. Why not build a setup that allows a tunnel to be potentially constructed off into the future when/if we can ever get our costs down? I feel as if we'll have better technology/engineering methods that will make tunnel construction more feasible.
^ Many would disagree, but the fact remains that making that part of 81 a viaduct has contributed to the current mess.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 13, 2022, 02:51:14 PMQuote from: roadman65 on January 13, 2022, 11:38:52 AM
What gets me is this freeway removal purge taking place all of a sudden. It's like develop the rural areas to bring more traffic and get rid of the much needed freeways needed for the region that carries the extra burden brought on by the greedy land developers.
There was of course the removal of the Sheridan Expressway in the Bronx. I didn't see any residents complain about that.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 13, 2022, 03:26:57 PMI hate to beat a rotten horse corpse, but tunnel is not an option. Heck, US cannot afford rebuilding much more critical Amtrak NYC-NJ tunnel for what, 15 years and counting?Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2022, 12:16:44 PMI hate to beat a dead horse here but there was a tunnel option. Why not build a setup that allows a tunnel to be potentially constructed off into the future when/if we can ever get our costs down? I feel as if we'll have better technology/engineering methods that will make tunnel construction more feasible.
^ Many would disagree, but the fact remains that making that part of 81 a viaduct has contributed to the current mess.
Quote from: kalvado on January 13, 2022, 03:50:51 PMIt's not an option because of our ridiculous laws that make our infrastructure the most expensive in the world to build. So why just accept that and have the mindset that can't ever change?Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 13, 2022, 03:26:57 PMI hate to beat a rotten horse corpse, but tunnel is not an option. Heck, US cannot afford rebuilding much more critical Amtrak NYC-NJ tunnel for what, 15 years and counting?Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2022, 12:16:44 PMI hate to beat a dead horse here but there was a tunnel option. Why not build a setup that allows a tunnel to be potentially constructed off into the future when/if we can ever get our costs down? I feel as if we'll have better technology/engineering methods that will make tunnel construction more feasible.
^ Many would disagree, but the fact remains that making that part of 81 a viaduct has contributed to the current mess.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 13, 2022, 03:52:15 PMIt's not an option because of ridiculous geological situation in the city. But keep going, we all know education decline preceded technological decline, and we need more proof for that to be presented.Quote from: kalvado on January 13, 2022, 03:50:51 PMIt's not an option because of our ridiculous laws that make our infrastructure the most expensive in the world to build. So why just accept that and have the mindset that can't ever change?Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 13, 2022, 03:26:57 PMI hate to beat a rotten horse corpse, but tunnel is not an option. Heck, US cannot afford rebuilding much more critical Amtrak NYC-NJ tunnel for what, 15 years and counting?Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2022, 12:16:44 PMI hate to beat a dead horse here but there was a tunnel option. Why not build a setup that allows a tunnel to be potentially constructed off into the future when/if we can ever get our costs down? I feel as if we'll have better technology/engineering methods that will make tunnel construction more feasible.
^ Many would disagree, but the fact remains that making that part of 81 a viaduct has contributed to the current mess.
Quote from: seicer on January 13, 2022, 04:16:44 PMI guess the argument is that things can be done Robert Moses style on a cheap. Point here is that geology would still make going through city center pretty expensive even if all the regulations be damned
How would you propose to build a $4.9 billion tunnel when there are many projects backlogged in the state? Who would pay for the extremely expensive project that would serve less than 70,000 AADT? If I am not mistaken, there were also geological complications that would make a tunnel much more expensive to construct than normal. Factor in the usual bloat (political, environmental, etc.), there isn't a feasible way to reduce construction costs and there just isn't going to be the push to do so without having to radically transform how infrastructure is planned, designed, funded, and constructed in this nation.
Quote from: seicer on January 13, 2022, 04:16:44 PMWell if you read my post I suggested we hold off on building the tunnel but design the project so a tunnel with portals can be built in the future. We can then focus on building a transformative road through Syracuse that enhances alternative transportation and work on getting to bigger pressing needs that we've been neglecting for decades. While we do that we can also work to sensibly remove red tape laws or give exemptions to major/critical projects.
How would you propose to build a $4.9 billion tunnel when there are many projects backlogged in the state? Who would pay for the extremely expensive project that would serve less than 70,000 AADT? If I am not mistaken, there were also geological complications that would make a tunnel much more expensive to construct than normal. Factor in the usual bloat (political, environmental, etc.), there isn't a feasible way to reduce construction costs and there just isn't going to be the push to do so without having to radically transform how infrastructure is planned, designed, funded, and constructed in this nation.
Quote from: Strider on January 13, 2022, 03:34:22 PMMaybe because too many of them don't understand the need for any type of limited-access highway, and have been conditioned to associate them with urban decay and racial discrimination, even if it has nothing to do with the subjects.Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 13, 2022, 02:51:14 PMQuote from: roadman65 on January 13, 2022, 11:38:52 AM
What gets me is this freeway removal purge taking place all of a sudden. It's like develop the rural areas to bring more traffic and get rid of the much needed freeways needed for the region that carries the extra burden brought on by the greedy land developers.
There was of course the removal of the Sheridan Expressway in the Bronx. I didn't see any residents complain about that.
they have easy access to I-95 to the north and I-278 to the south, and the Sheridan is only like 2 or 3 miles between both ends. That is why you don't hear any residents complain about that.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 13, 2022, 04:30:42 PMQuote from: seicer on January 13, 2022, 04:16:44 PMWell if you read my post I suggested we hold off on building the tunnel but design the project so a tunnel with portals can be built in the future. We can then focus on building a transformative road through Syracuse that enhances alternative transportation and work on getting to bigger pressing needs that we've been neglecting for decades. While we do that we can also work to sensibly remove red tape laws or give exemptions to major/critical projects.
How would you propose to build a $4.9 billion tunnel when there are many projects backlogged in the state? Who would pay for the extremely expensive project that would serve less than 70,000 AADT? If I am not mistaken, there were also geological complications that would make a tunnel much more expensive to construct than normal. Factor in the usual bloat (political, environmental, etc.), there isn't a feasible way to reduce construction costs and there just isn't going to be the push to do so without having to radically transform how infrastructure is planned, designed, funded, and constructed in this nation.
Perhaps down the road, we can revisit building a tunnel that other countries could build today for a billion or so while we tell ourselves we can't do it for anything less than 5 billion dollars.
So instead of knee jerk reactions and pathetic attempts at insults like the other poster seems love, if you disagree then tell me your plan? If we remove this because it goes through the city center and isn't respectful of the neighborhoods then why shouldn't every other city in America do the same thing?
Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2022, 12:31:38 PMA lot of luxury apartments aren't actually meant to be rented, but are rather just a place for investors to park their money. I'm not sure how that actually works given property taxes and whatnot, but apparently they can make money by valuing the place at the potential profit if the units were actually all rented. Maybe they rent just enough to cover the taxes? That would explain why so many "luxury" units are cheaply constructed and have poor maintenance and customer service.
What befuddles me has been the recent proliferation of luxury apartment building in downtown -- plans that extended from before the pandemic. I can't figure out who is renting them.
Quote from: seicer on January 13, 2022, 08:32:20 PMI don't think I'm the one taking it personally. I'd say that about someone who feels the need to insult someone else because they have a different opinion of how a freeway should be built :pQuote from: Plutonic Panda on January 13, 2022, 04:30:42 PMQuote from: seicer on January 13, 2022, 04:16:44 PMWell if you read my post I suggested we hold off on building the tunnel but design the project so a tunnel with portals can be built in the future. We can then focus on building a transformative road through Syracuse that enhances alternative transportation and work on getting to bigger pressing needs that we've been neglecting for decades. While we do that we can also work to sensibly remove red tape laws or give exemptions to major/critical projects.
How would you propose to build a $4.9 billion tunnel when there are many projects backlogged in the state? Who would pay for the extremely expensive project that would serve less than 70,000 AADT? If I am not mistaken, there were also geological complications that would make a tunnel much more expensive to construct than normal. Factor in the usual bloat (political, environmental, etc.), there isn't a feasible way to reduce construction costs and there just isn't going to be the push to do so without having to radically transform how infrastructure is planned, designed, funded, and constructed in this nation.
Perhaps down the road, we can revisit building a tunnel that other countries could build today for a billion or so while we tell ourselves we can't do it for anything less than 5 billion dollars.
So instead of knee jerk reactions and pathetic attempts at insults like the other poster seems love, if you disagree then tell me your plan? If we remove this because it goes through the city center and isn't respectful of the neighborhoods then why shouldn't every other city in America do the same thing?
Nothing knee-jerk about it; you are just taking it personally when someone disagrees with your viewpoint that we should just build portals to a tunnel with funds that don't exist for a tunnel that won't really exist in our lifetimes - or any lifetime. No highway DOT has built in the past at high expense roadway stubs with the goal of using it as a tool to push a highway through later. Countless examples litter across the US with examples of the reverse; stubs or ghostly remains of highways that were canceled through urban centers. This would be another example of that.
Quote from: vdeane on January 13, 2022, 08:46:02 PMThese are pretty well occupied from looking around downtown.Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2022, 12:31:38 PMA lot of luxury apartments aren't actually meant to be rented, but are rather just a place for investors to park their money. I'm not sure how that actually works given property taxes and whatnot, but apparently they can make money by valuing the place at the potential profit if the units were actually all rented. Maybe they rent just enough to cover the taxes? That would explain why so many "luxury" units are cheaply constructed and have poor maintenance and customer service.
What befuddles me has been the recent proliferation of luxury apartment building in downtown -- plans that extended from before the pandemic. I can't figure out who is renting them.
Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2022, 09:55:18 PMQuote from: vdeane on January 13, 2022, 08:46:02 PMThese are pretty well occupied from looking around downtown.Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2022, 12:31:38 PMA lot of luxury apartments aren't actually meant to be rented, but are rather just a place for investors to park their money. I'm not sure how that actually works given property taxes and whatnot, but apparently they can make money by valuing the place at the potential profit if the units were actually all rented. Maybe they rent just enough to cover the taxes? That would explain why so many "luxury" units are cheaply constructed and have poor maintenance and customer service.
What befuddles me has been the recent proliferation of luxury apartment building in downtown -- plans that extended from before the pandemic. I can't figure out who is renting them.
Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2022, 11:57:15 AM
^ This hasn't been "all of a sudden." This is decades in the making and is in part the result of poor decisions made when building these freeways to begin with.
Quote from: Rothman on January 26, 2022, 04:11:29 PMSo... is something going to actually happen this summer?
THIS HAS GONE ON TOO LONG (https://www.syracuse.com/news/2022/01/gov-hochul-confirms-nys-is-replacing-i-81-with-community-grid-this-has-gone-on-too-long.html).
It's gettin' all serious up in NYSDOT now...
Quote from: kalvado on January 26, 2022, 04:17:45 PMQuote from: Rothman on January 26, 2022, 04:11:29 PMSo... is something going to actually happen this summer?
THIS HAS GONE ON TOO LONG (https://www.syracuse.com/news/2022/01/gov-hochul-confirms-nys-is-replacing-i-81-with-community-grid-this-has-gone-on-too-long.html).
It's gettin' all serious up in NYSDOT now...
Quote from: machias on March 07, 2022, 06:02:57 PMThat area is unaffected by the project.
I'm curious to find out what the Thruway does with signing the new configurations at the appropriate interchanges.
Exit 36 - BL 81 - Syracuse / Syracuse Airport?
Exit 34A - I-81 - Binghamton / Watertown?
will Oswego and Chittenango lose their destination status on the main signs?
Quote from: Rothman on March 07, 2022, 06:38:36 PMQuote from: machias on March 07, 2022, 06:02:57 PMThat area is unaffected by the project.
I'm curious to find out what the Thruway does with signing the new configurations at the appropriate interchanges.
Exit 36 - BL 81 - Syracuse / Syracuse Airport?
Exit 34A - I-81 - Binghamton / Watertown?
will Oswego and Chittenango lose their destination status on the main signs?
Quote from: machias on March 07, 2022, 09:01:37 PMAh, signage. I read too quickly. Yep, signage will change.Quote from: Rothman on March 07, 2022, 06:38:36 PMQuote from: machias on March 07, 2022, 06:02:57 PMThat area is unaffected by the project.
I'm curious to find out what the Thruway does with signing the new configurations at the appropriate interchanges.
Exit 36 - BL 81 - Syracuse / Syracuse Airport?
Exit 34A - I-81 - Binghamton / Watertown?
will Oswego and Chittenango lose their destination status on the main signs?
Well the interchange sign for Exit 36 (Currently I-81 Watertown / Binghamton) isn't going to lead motorists to I-81 anymore, it'll be BL 81. And I'm assuming I-481 won't exist anymore so having an I-481 marker on Exit 34A seems rather pointless. So yes, those signs along the Thruway for the appropriate interchanges will certainly be affected by the project. My question is, will the Thruway relabel the interchanges, or with Exit 34A just say I-81 Oswego/Syracuse. Will they just slap a blue patch over the "4" in 481?
Quote from: machias on March 07, 2022, 09:01:37 PMQuote from: Rothman on March 07, 2022, 06:38:36 PMQuote from: machias on March 07, 2022, 06:02:57 PMThat area is unaffected by the project.
I’m curious to find out what the Thruway does with signing the new configurations at the appropriate interchanges.
Exit 36 - BL 81 - Syracuse / Syracuse Airport?
Exit 34A - I-81 - Binghamton / Watertown?
will Oswego and Chittenango lose their destination status on the main signs?
Well the interchange sign for Exit 36 (Currently I-81 Watertown / Binghamton) isn't going to lead motorists to I-81 anymore, it'll be BL 81. And I'm assuming I-481 won't exist anymore so having an I-481 marker on Exit 34A seems rather pointless. So yes, those signs along the Thruway for the appropriate interchanges will certainly be affected by the project. My question is, will the Thruway relabel the interchanges, or with Exit 34A just say I-81 Oswego/Syracuse. Will they just slap a blue patch over the "4" in 481?
Quote from: roadman65 on March 09, 2022, 08:44:58 PMWhile exit 39 is naturally the exit for the Fair if coming from Rochester or Buffalo, I don't see why someone coming from Utica or Albany would go that way.Quote from: machias on March 07, 2022, 09:01:37 PMQuote from: Rothman on March 07, 2022, 06:38:36 PMQuote from: machias on March 07, 2022, 06:02:57 PMThat area is unaffected by the project.
I'm curious to find out what the Thruway does with signing the new configurations at the appropriate interchanges.
Exit 36 - BL 81 - Syracuse / Syracuse Airport?
Exit 34A - I-81 - Binghamton / Watertown?
will Oswego and Chittenango lose their destination status on the main signs?
Well the interchange sign for Exit 36 (Currently I-81 Watertown / Binghamton) isn't going to lead motorists to I-81 anymore, it'll be BL 81. And I'm assuming I-481 won't exist anymore so having an I-481 marker on Exit 34A seems rather pointless. So yes, those signs along the Thruway for the appropriate interchanges will certainly be affected by the project. My question is, will the Thruway relabel the interchanges, or with Exit 34A just say I-81 Oswego/Syracuse. Will they just slap a blue patch over the "4" in 481?
Watertown at 36 might end up staying as BL I-81 is still freeway connecting to I-81 north, however Binghamton May get greened out for Syracuse. 34A might see Watertown and Binghamton replace what is there now and Syracuse on supplemental signs instead.
https://goo.gl/maps/wHrTCBFYGSreGwzN9
The 34A ramp, though, already includes I-81 destinations. Though why mention the Fairgrounds when Exit 39 is the exit to take for that is beyond comprehension to include with this.
Quote from: vdeane on March 09, 2022, 09:07:31 PM
While exit 39 is naturally the exit for the Fair if coming from Rochester or Buffalo, I don't see why someone coming from Utica or Albany would go that way.
Quote from: dzheng35 on March 17, 2022, 01:20:48 PMIf coming from the south, either take the "community grid" through downtown, or take present-day I-481 to I-690. Since the latter is 9 minutes or so longer now, I would imagine the "community grid" will still be the quickest after completion.
This leads me to wonder how will people get to the mall or the airport after the project finishes within a decade if it's no longer going to be near the interstate after its rerouting. Because for the past years before the COVID craziness, my family has been going to the mall every Black Friday and there were times when we would go to the Syracuse Airport to pick up or drop somebody.
Quote from: dzheng35 on March 26, 2022, 04:12:57 PM
Why can't something similar to this happen with I-68 through Cumberland Maryland by building a bypass around Cumberland and demolishing the I-68 viaduct and turning that into a community grid?
Quote from: davewiecking on March 27, 2022, 02:11:16 PMHagerstown?Quote from: dzheng35 on March 26, 2022, 04:12:57 PM
Why can't something similar to this happen with I-68 through Cumberland Maryland by building a bypass around Cumberland and demolishing the I-68 viaduct and turning that into a community grid?
Syracuse has an already-existing I-481 bypass that can take over I-81. Hagerstown's suburbs have no such thing, nor as has been noted, the topography to allow one to be built at a reasonable cost and without unreasonable disruption to the area.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 27, 2022, 02:25:23 PMQuote from: davewiecking on March 27, 2022, 02:11:16 PMHagerstown?Quote from: dzheng35 on March 26, 2022, 04:12:57 PM
Why can't something similar to this happen with I-68 through Cumberland Maryland by building a bypass around Cumberland and demolishing the I-68 viaduct and turning that into a community grid?
Syracuse has an already-existing I-481 bypass that can take over I-81. Hagerstown's suburbs have no such thing, nor as has been noted, the topography to allow one to be built at a reasonable cost and without unreasonable disruption to the area.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 27, 2022, 06:36:34 PMGiven what would have been torn down in Syracuse, I'd imagine more than what people may think. In Syracuse, at least there was space on the west side of the viaduct (still would have required massive ROW acquisition). In Cumberland, I-68 was really squeezed through the city, much more tightly.
How much would have to be torn down to "hypothetically" reconstruct the substandard segment of Interstate 68 in Cumberland to Interstate Standards?
Quote from: Rothman on March 28, 2022, 12:15:57 AMAnd for those of us who don't know which legal document you're referring to?
Hello section 4(f), killer of project schedules.
Quote from: kalvado on March 28, 2022, 09:52:42 AMUSDOT Act of 1966. Once public lands are involved, it kicks off an entire convoluted federal subprocess.Quote from: Rothman on March 28, 2022, 12:15:57 AMAnd for those of us who don't know which legal document you're referring to?
Hello section 4(f), killer of project schedules.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 15, 2022, 08:42:41 PMWell, FEIS, anyway. Next stop, ROD.
Final design: https://www.localsyr.com/news/future-of-81/highlights-of-the-i-81-viaduct-project-final-environmental-impact-statement/
Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2022, 09:09:21 PMI though the FHWA was publishing FEISs and RODs concurrently as a way to streamline the NEPA process. Why is that not the case here?Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 15, 2022, 08:42:41 PMWell, FEIS, anyway. Next stop, ROD.
Final design: https://www.localsyr.com/news/future-of-81/highlights-of-the-i-81-viaduct-project-final-environmental-impact-statement/
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 15, 2022, 10:38:49 PMNot sure, but I haven't heard the ROD being signed off on yet.Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2022, 09:09:21 PMI though the FHWA was publishing FEISs and RODs concurrently as a way to streamline the NEPA process. Why is that not the case here?Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 15, 2022, 08:42:41 PMWell, FEIS, anyway. Next stop, ROD.
Final design: https://www.localsyr.com/news/future-of-81/highlights-of-the-i-81-viaduct-project-final-environmental-impact-statement/
Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2022, 09:09:21 PMNext stop, ROD.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 15, 2022, 11:56:05 PMDefinitely waiting on any new comments (i.e., comments not previously addressed) in this case. Lawsuits are also expected.
Record of Decision. It reflects FHWA's final approval of the selected alternative and the final passage of the NEPA/Section 106 environmental analysis process.
A 45 day period of comments from designated agencies and the public is normally given following the release of the Final EIS in order to solicit public comment; then, unless there is some significant opposition or any changes in impacts, the ROD is then approved, signed and released to the public.
Quote from: Rothman on March 27, 2022, 08:50:07 PMIn Syracuse, at least there was space on the west side of the viaduct (still would have required massive ROW acquisition).
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 15, 2022, 08:42:41 PM
Final design: https://www.localsyr.com/news/future-of-81/highlights-of-the-i-81-viaduct-project-final-environmental-impact-statement/
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 17, 2022, 07:08:11 PMRight. The thing was distributed online and hard copies of the thousands of pages distributed to libraries and available for reading at DOT's Regional office.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 15, 2022, 08:42:41 PM
Final design: https://www.localsyr.com/news/future-of-81/highlights-of-the-i-81-viaduct-project-final-environmental-impact-statement/
Officially released on Good Friday? Is there something they're trying to hide?
Quote from: ixnay on April 17, 2022, 07:01:42 PMWe were comparing it to Cumberland.Quote from: Rothman on March 27, 2022, 08:50:07 PMIn Syracuse, at least there was space on the west side of the viaduct (still would have required massive ROW acquisition).
Per Google Sat, I don't see too much open space west of the viaduct. Some parking lots, but also the Pioneer Homes, the McMahon Child Advocacy Center, a parking garage, and a couple of other things.
Quote from: Rothman on April 17, 2022, 10:22:45 PMQuote from: CtrlAltDel on April 17, 2022, 07:08:11 PMRight. The thing was distributed online and hard copies of the thousands of pages distributed to libraries and available for reading at DOT's Regional office.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 15, 2022, 08:42:41 PM
Final design: https://www.localsyr.com/news/future-of-81/highlights-of-the-i-81-viaduct-project-final-environmental-impact-statement/
Officially released on Good Friday? Is there something they're trying to hide?
And, because it was done on a holiday not observed by the State, NYSDOT is trying to hide something.
Puh-leeeeeze.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 17, 2022, 11:12:32 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 17, 2022, 10:22:45 PMQuote from: CtrlAltDel on April 17, 2022, 07:08:11 PMRight. The thing was distributed online and hard copies of the thousands of pages distributed to libraries and available for reading at DOT's Regional office.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 15, 2022, 08:42:41 PM
Final design: https://www.localsyr.com/news/future-of-81/highlights-of-the-i-81-viaduct-project-final-environmental-impact-statement/
Officially released on Good Friday? Is there something they're trying to hide?
And, because it was done on a holiday not observed by the State, NYSDOT is trying to hide something.
Puh-leeeeeze.
It's a legit question that frankly doesn't warrant your derisive sarcasm. It's not exactly uncommon to release unpleasant things on days when people's minds are on an upcoming holiday.
Quote from: Rothman on April 17, 2022, 11:16:55 PM
So, you didn't take any initiative to look beyond that bias
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 17, 2022, 11:20:39 PMPlease do.Quote from: Rothman on April 17, 2022, 11:16:55 PM
So, you didn't take any initiative to look beyond that bias
Other than asking my question on a message board full of people who pay attention to such things, no.
Past that, this seems to be something that pushes your berserk button, and so, to spare the throbbing vein in your forehead, I will bow out.
Quote from: webny99 on April 18, 2022, 08:41:28 AMHow is it bad news for someone who wanted the project to happen? The FEIS means the project is moving forward.
I don't think there's anything awry here - but it's obviously not good news for anyone that wanted the project to happen, while not generating much positive interest to anyone else. So it makes sense and isn't the least bit surprising that it would be a Friday news dump.
Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2022, 08:48:41 AMQuote from: webny99 on April 18, 2022, 08:41:28 AMHow is it bad news for someone who wanted the project to happen? The FEIS means the project is moving forward.
I don't think there's anything awry here - but it's obviously not good news for anyone that wanted the project to happen, while not generating much positive interest to anyone else. So it makes sense and isn't the least bit surprising that it would be a Friday news dump.
What'll hold it up now are the expected lawsuits (e.g., DestinyUSA).
Quote from: webny99 on April 18, 2022, 08:56:36 AMHeh. That does make more sense now.Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2022, 08:48:41 AMQuote from: webny99 on April 18, 2022, 08:41:28 AMHow is it bad news for someone who wanted the project to happen? The FEIS means the project is moving forward.
I don't think there's anything awry here - but it's obviously not good news for anyone that wanted the project to happen, while not generating much positive interest to anyone else. So it makes sense and isn't the least bit surprising that it would be a Friday news dump.
What'll hold it up now are the expected lawsuits (e.g., DestinyUSA).
Wow, I goofed badly. I didn't read back far enough and I thought this was the discussion about US 219 from another thread. Scratch my comment, but hopefully it makes more sense in that light!
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 18, 2022, 04:55:36 PMYou've got a while for that to happen. Viaduct's not coming down for a few years.
Any updates on when Interstate 481 will become the "relocated" Interstate 81? The sooner that happens, the sooner the entire Interstate 81 corridor gets mileage-based exits.
Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2022, 05:31:08 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on April 18, 2022, 04:55:36 PMYou've got a while for that to happen. Viaduct's not coming down for a few years.
Any updates on when Interstate 481 will become the "relocated" Interstate 81? The sooner that happens, the sooner the entire Interstate 81 corridor gets mileage-based exits.
Quote from: webny99 on April 18, 2022, 05:36:29 PMThis is true. The schedule is optimistic.Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2022, 05:31:08 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on April 18, 2022, 04:55:36 PMYou've got a while for that to happen. Viaduct's not coming down for a few years.
Any updates on when Interstate 481 will become the "relocated" Interstate 81? The sooner that happens, the sooner the entire Interstate 81 corridor gets mileage-based exits.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think all the I-481 improvements and I-81 interchange(s) will have to be done before the switch happens.
Quote from: Rothman on April 29, 2022, 11:35:11 AMWhen are they planning to break ground on the project?
Vote to add Phase 1 (five contracts totally nearly $1 billion) of the I-81 Viaduct Project to LRTP and TIP was passed in SMTC's Policy Committee today, overcoming one nay vote in either case, both coming from Jim Rowley, an Onondaga County Legislator.
NYSDOT is now free to authorize the funding as federal project development and design requirements are met.
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 11, 2022, 04:33:23 PM
When are they planning to break ground on the project?
QuoteI-81 VIADUCT - BL 81, OSWEGO BLVD, PEARL STREETProject ID No. 350196
Description
Pavement: Reconstruction, Concrete
I-81 VIADUCT - BL 81, OSWEGO BLVD, PEARL STREET: 1 NEW BRIDGE, 2 BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS (BINS 1031570, 1050922), 13 BRIDGES REMOVED (BINS 1050800, 1050010, 1053882, 1053881, 105095A, 105100A, 1053870, 1053860, 1064590, 1051063, 105384A, 1053840, 2208620.
Project Overview
Project Status
- The current status of the project is Future Development.
- The Bid Opening is expected to be in Winter 2024/2025.
- Construction is expected to begin in Spring 2025.
- Construction is expected to be completed in .
Cost of the Project
The project cost is approximately $289,300,000.
This project receives funding from the following sources:
Federal: Yes
State : Yes
Local : No
Quote from: Michael on May 20, 2022, 08:25:22 PMOnly Phase 1 was approved for funding and Record of Decision has not been achieved yet.
I was just looking at the NYSDOT Projects page, and I noticed that the I-81 viaduct replacement is now listed (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=350196).
In case the link ends up dying, here's the text:QuoteI-81 VIADUCT - BL 81, OSWEGO BLVD, PEARL STREETProject ID No. 350196
Description
Pavement: Reconstruction, Concrete
I-81 VIADUCT - BL 81, OSWEGO BLVD, PEARL STREET: 1 NEW BRIDGE, 2 BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS (BINS 1031570, 1050922), 13 BRIDGES REMOVED (BINS 1050800, 1050010, 1053882, 1053881, 105095A, 105100A, 1053870, 1053860, 1064590, 1051063, 105384A, 1053840, 2208620.
Project Overview
Project Status
- The current status of the project is Future Development.
- The Bid Opening is expected to be in Winter 2024/2025.
- Construction is expected to begin in Spring 2025.
- Construction is expected to be completed in .
Cost of the Project
The project cost is approximately $289,300,000.
This project receives funding from the following sources:
Federal: Yes
State : Yes
Local : No
Note that there isn't a D-number assigned yet. I find it interesting that the project description mentions "BL 81" and also doesn't have an estimated completion date. I also looked for listings for the other parts of the project, but I didn't see anything.
Quote from: Rothman on May 21, 2022, 08:38:00 PMhe said a rouse, not a ruse. some people are turned on by roads
Ugh. You people...
Phase 1 is approved for funding, which is all the I-481 improvements plus a few others here and there. And, of course they'll be done before the viaduct comes down.
So, of course 350196 doesn't have a D-number yet, since it's part of Phase 2.
When I'm back in the office, I'll post the PINs here.
And the statement that the I-481 is just a ruse has to be one of the silliest comments I have seen on the forum...Alanland aside.
Quote from: Rothman on May 21, 2022, 08:38:00 PMJust looked through the posted list of R3 projects. I don't see anything that would correspond to Phase 1. I could definitely miss them, though, as the search feature works... well, good enough for the government job. For example "I-81 VIADUCT - BL 81,... " can be found using "viaduct" or "BL 81" keywords, but not using "I-81"
Ugh. You people...
Phase 1 is approved for funding, which is all the I-481 improvements plus a few others here and there. And, of course they'll be done before the viaduct comes down.
So, of course 350196 doesn't have a D-number yet, since it's part of Phase 2.
When I'm back in the office, I'll post the PINs here.
And the statement that the I-481 is just a ruse has to be one of the silliest comments I have seen on the forum...Alanland aside.
Quote from: kalvado on May 22, 2022, 03:40:15 PMPfft. Like I said, I'll post the PINs tomorrow, little impatient one.Quote from: Rothman on May 21, 2022, 08:38:00 PMJust looked through the posted list of R3 projects. I don't see anything that would correspond to Phase 1. I could definitely miss them, though, as the search feature works... well, good enough for the government job. For example "I-81 VIADUCT - BL 81,... " can be found using "viaduct" or "BL 81" keywords, but not using "I-81"
Ugh. You people...
Phase 1 is approved for funding, which is all the I-481 improvements plus a few others here and there. And, of course they'll be done before the viaduct comes down.
So, of course 350196 doesn't have a D-number yet, since it's part of Phase 2.
When I'm back in the office, I'll post the PINs here.
And the statement that the I-481 is just a ruse has to be one of the silliest comments I have seen on the forum...Alanland aside.
I can imagine officially posting viaduct removal as a political thing; however, I don't see "bait and switch" with I-481 I improvements limited to new shields as something totally impossible.
Quote from: Alps on May 22, 2022, 12:03:25 AMQuote from: Rothman on May 21, 2022, 08:38:00 PMhe said a rouse, not a ruse. some people are turned on by roads
Ugh. You people...
Phase 1 is approved for funding, which is all the I-481 improvements plus a few others here and there. And, of course they'll be done before the viaduct comes down.
So, of course 350196 doesn't have a D-number yet, since it's part of Phase 2.
When I'm back in the office, I'll post the PINs here.
And the statement that the I-481 is just a ruse has to be one of the silliest comments I have seen on the forum...Alanland aside.
Quote from: Rothman on May 23, 2022, 02:18:13 PM
Like I said, only Phase 1 was approved for funding so far. Phase 1 consists of the following projects, which will be posted to the NYSDOT site after the tedium of the actual programming is worked out now that they've been added to the TIP/STIP. All these PINs and information were presented to the public through the MPO process and costs are from the approved amended projects, which are found on SMTC's website:
350190: Convert I-481 to I-81, I-81 North Of I-690, $321.35m to have construction authorized this FFY (includes northern I-81/I-481 interchange)
350191: Convert I-481 to I-81, I-81 South of I-690, $243.35m to have construction authorized this FFY (includes southern I-81/I-481 interchange)
350192: BL-81 Northern Section, Phase 1, $78.5m to have construction authorized next FFY. Essentially bridge work along current I-81.
350193: I-690 over Crouse Ave and Irving Ave, $163m for bridge work along I-690. Construction to be authorized next FFY.
350194: Business Loop 81 Southern Section, Phase 1, $140m. Construction to be authorized next FFY. Bridge/ramp work along current I-81.
Phase 2 will consist of rebuilding the I-690/West St interchange and removing the viaduct and some remaining bridge work (PINs 350195 to 350197). Looking a couple of years out for construction for that. We'll see when they will be added to the TIP/STIP.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: kalvado on May 23, 2022, 02:30:22 PMPerhaps you should read my post again.Quote from: Rothman on May 23, 2022, 02:18:13 PM
Like I said, only Phase 1 was approved for funding so far. Phase 1 consists of the following projects, which will be posted to the NYSDOT site after the tedium of the actual programming is worked out now that they've been added to the TIP/STIP. All these PINs and information were presented to the public through the MPO process and costs are from the approved amended projects, which are found on SMTC's website:
350190: Convert I-481 to I-81, I-81 North Of I-690, $321.35m to have construction authorized this FFY (includes northern I-81/I-481 interchange)
350191: Convert I-481 to I-81, I-81 South of I-690, $243.35m to have construction authorized this FFY (includes southern I-81/I-481 interchange)
350192: BL-81 Northern Section, Phase 1, $78.5m to have construction authorized next FFY. Essentially bridge work along current I-81.
350193: I-690 over Crouse Ave and Irving Ave, $163m for bridge work along I-690. Construction to be authorized next FFY.
350194: Business Loop 81 Southern Section, Phase 1, $140m. Construction to be authorized next FFY. Bridge/ramp work along current I-81.
Phase 2 will consist of rebuilding the I-690/West St interchange and removing the viaduct and some remaining bridge work (PINs 350195 to 350197). Looking a couple of years out for construction for that. We'll see when they will be added to the TIP/STIP.
(personal opinion emphasized)
None of these PINs are present on https://www.dot.ny.gov/projects
That is unlike 350196 - just 2 steps further down the numerical list and few years further down the line
So either 350196 is pushed for presentation due to political reasons, or bait-and-switch is actually more plausible than you may think.
Quote from: Rothman on May 23, 2022, 02:36:04 PM
You conspiracy theorists really do think government is more organized than it is.
Quote from: Rothman on May 23, 2022, 02:36:04 PMQuote from: kalvado on May 23, 2022, 02:30:22 PMPerhaps you should read my post again.Quote from: Rothman on May 23, 2022, 02:18:13 PM
Like I said, only Phase 1 was approved for funding so far. Phase 1 consists of the following projects, which will be posted to the NYSDOT site after the tedium of the actual programming is worked out now that they've been added to the TIP/STIP. All these PINs and information were presented to the public through the MPO process and costs are from the approved amended projects, which are found on SMTC's website:
350190: Convert I-481 to I-81, I-81 North Of I-690, $321.35m to have construction authorized this FFY (includes northern I-81/I-481 interchange)
350191: Convert I-481 to I-81, I-81 South of I-690, $243.35m to have construction authorized this FFY (includes southern I-81/I-481 interchange)
350192: BL-81 Northern Section, Phase 1, $78.5m to have construction authorized next FFY. Essentially bridge work along current I-81.
350193: I-690 over Crouse Ave and Irving Ave, $163m for bridge work along I-690. Construction to be authorized next FFY.
350194: Business Loop 81 Southern Section, Phase 1, $140m. Construction to be authorized next FFY. Bridge/ramp work along current I-81.
Phase 2 will consist of rebuilding the I-690/West St interchange and removing the viaduct and some remaining bridge work (PINs 350195 to 350197). Looking a couple of years out for construction for that. We'll see when they will be added to the TIP/STIP.
(personal opinion emphasized)
None of these PINs are present on https://www.dot.ny.gov/projects
That is unlike 350196 - just 2 steps further down the numerical list and few years further down the line
So either 350196 is pushed for presentation due to political reasons, or bait-and-switch is actually more plausible than you may think.
You conspiracy theorists really do think government is more organized than it is.
My bet is 350196 is up there by mistake.
Quote from: kalvado on May 23, 2022, 03:11:43 PMPfft. The urbanist crowd is already satiated. Although it is intriguing to think that MPO members could kill Phase 2, in my opinion, enough grease has been applied to ensure that it will be funded.Quote from: Rothman on May 23, 2022, 02:36:04 PMQuote from: kalvado on May 23, 2022, 02:30:22 PMPerhaps you should read my post again.Quote from: Rothman on May 23, 2022, 02:18:13 PM
Like I said, only Phase 1 was approved for funding so far. Phase 1 consists of the following projects, which will be posted to the NYSDOT site after the tedium of the actual programming is worked out now that they've been added to the TIP/STIP. All these PINs and information were presented to the public through the MPO process and costs are from the approved amended projects, which are found on SMTC's website:
350190: Convert I-481 to I-81, I-81 North Of I-690, $321.35m to have construction authorized this FFY (includes northern I-81/I-481 interchange)
350191: Convert I-481 to I-81, I-81 South of I-690, $243.35m to have construction authorized this FFY (includes southern I-81/I-481 interchange)
350192: BL-81 Northern Section, Phase 1, $78.5m to have construction authorized next FFY. Essentially bridge work along current I-81.
350193: I-690 over Crouse Ave and Irving Ave, $163m for bridge work along I-690. Construction to be authorized next FFY.
350194: Business Loop 81 Southern Section, Phase 1, $140m. Construction to be authorized next FFY. Bridge/ramp work along current I-81.
Phase 2 will consist of rebuilding the I-690/West St interchange and removing the viaduct and some remaining bridge work (PINs 350195 to 350197). Looking a couple of years out for construction for that. We'll see when they will be added to the TIP/STIP.
(personal opinion emphasized)
None of these PINs are present on https://www.dot.ny.gov/projects
That is unlike 350196 - just 2 steps further down the numerical list and few years further down the line
So either 350196 is pushed for presentation due to political reasons, or bait-and-switch is actually more plausible than you may think.
You conspiracy theorists really do think government is more organized than it is.
My bet is 350196 is up there by mistake.
Actually my expectation is that someone (lets just say she is running for the governor) wants to show something to urbanist crowd. This is more benign than conspiracy, but maybe more likely than posting a random politically sensitive project.
The other issue is... Did someone in DOT asked themselves what is going to happen if project is not fully funded, but viaduct is already past the end of life? With prices doing what they do, this seems plausible...
Quote from: Rothman on May 23, 2022, 03:20:31 PMShowing a candy to kids never hurts..Quote from: kalvado on May 23, 2022, 03:11:43 PMPfft. The urbanist crowd is already satiated. Although it is intriguing to think that MPO members could kill Phase 2, in my opinion, enough grease has been applied to ensure that it will be funded.Quote from: Rothman on May 23, 2022, 02:36:04 PMQuote from: kalvado on May 23, 2022, 02:30:22 PMPerhaps you should read my post again.Quote from: Rothman on May 23, 2022, 02:18:13 PM
Like I said, only Phase 1 was approved for funding so far. Phase 1 consists of the following projects, which will be posted to the NYSDOT site after the tedium of the actual programming is worked out now that they've been added to the TIP/STIP. All these PINs and information were presented to the public through the MPO process and costs are from the approved amended projects, which are found on SMTC's website:
350190: Convert I-481 to I-81, I-81 North Of I-690, $321.35m to have construction authorized this FFY (includes northern I-81/I-481 interchange)
350191: Convert I-481 to I-81, I-81 South of I-690, $243.35m to have construction authorized this FFY (includes southern I-81/I-481 interchange)
350192: BL-81 Northern Section, Phase 1, $78.5m to have construction authorized next FFY. Essentially bridge work along current I-81.
350193: I-690 over Crouse Ave and Irving Ave, $163m for bridge work along I-690. Construction to be authorized next FFY.
350194: Business Loop 81 Southern Section, Phase 1, $140m. Construction to be authorized next FFY. Bridge/ramp work along current I-81.
Phase 2 will consist of rebuilding the I-690/West St interchange and removing the viaduct and some remaining bridge work (PINs 350195 to 350197). Looking a couple of years out for construction for that. We'll see when they will be added to the TIP/STIP.
(personal opinion emphasized)
None of these PINs are present on https://www.dot.ny.gov/projects
That is unlike 350196 - just 2 steps further down the numerical list and few years further down the line
So either 350196 is pushed for presentation due to political reasons, or bait-and-switch is actually more plausible than you may think.
You conspiracy theorists really do think government is more organized than it is.
My bet is 350196 is up there by mistake.
Actually my expectation is that someone (lets just say she is running for the governor) wants to show something to urbanist crowd. This is more benign than conspiracy, but maybe more likely than posting a random politically sensitive project.
The other issue is... Did someone in DOT asked themselves what is going to happen if project is not fully funded, but viaduct is already past the end of life? With prices doing what they do, this seems plausible...
Just like it was presented to the public and MPOs and whoever else cared to pay attention, the community grid is the preferred alternative and we're coming up on ROD in a couple of weeks.
The grid is here; urbanists have been rejoicing...
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 31, 2022, 10:37:36 PMEssentially, ROD is design approval. On to final design...
It is official: https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/i-81-plan-reaches-final-destination-officials-issue-final-stamp-of-approval-for-grid/ar-AAXVTJC?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a3ab0b79de3c46d8a60578f8c9736887.
Quote from: Rothman on May 31, 2022, 10:38:35 PMNot exactly. The ROD signifies the approved alternative for the proposed action, which in this case, is to reroute I-81 along I-481 and convert the existing I-81 freeway inside I-481 to a boulevard, to be designated Business Loop 81. With the FEIS published and the ROD signed, now NYSDOT can move to final design.Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 31, 2022, 10:37:36 PMEssentially, ROD is design approval. On to final design...
It is official: https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/i-81-plan-reaches-final-destination-officials-issue-final-stamp-of-approval-for-grid/ar-AAXVTJC?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a3ab0b79de3c46d8a60578f8c9736887.
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 31, 2022, 11:22:39 PMQuote from: Rothman on May 31, 2022, 10:38:35 PMNot exactly. The ROD signifies the approved alternative for the proposed action, which in this case, is to reroute I-81 along I-481 and convert the existing I-81 freeway inside I-481 to a boulevard, to be designated Business Loop 81. With the FEIS published and the ROD signed, now NYSDOT can move to final design.Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 31, 2022, 10:37:36 PMEssentially, ROD is design approval. On to final design...
It is official: https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/i-81-plan-reaches-final-destination-officials-issue-final-stamp-of-approval-for-grid/ar-AAXVTJC?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a3ab0b79de3c46d8a60578f8c9736887.
Quote
Assuming NYSDOT is taking the Design-Bid-Build approach, the next step would be to flesh out the exact design details for each of the project elements in order to create a complete set of plans, drawings, and specifications needed for construction.
Now if NYSDOT is going the Design-Build route, then they may already have a preliminary set of plans, drawings, and specifications (say...35% design, or maybe up to 65%), but then the Design-Build contractor would then finalize the design and, once their design submittal is approved by NYSDOT, begin construction.
Quote from: Rothman on May 31, 2022, 11:42:22 PMSounds like a difference of semantics. So "design approval" really means approval to start design, not so much the "design has been approved."Quote from: abqtraveler on May 31, 2022, 11:22:39 PMQuote from: Rothman on May 31, 2022, 10:38:35 PMNot exactly. The ROD signifies the approved alternative for the proposed action, which in this case, is to reroute I-81 along I-481 and convert the existing I-81 freeway inside I-481 to a boulevard, to be designated Business Loop 81. With the FEIS published and the ROD signed, now NYSDOT can move to final design.Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 31, 2022, 10:37:36 PMEssentially, ROD is design approval. On to final design...
It is official: https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/i-81-plan-reaches-final-destination-officials-issue-final-stamp-of-approval-for-grid/ar-AAXVTJC?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a3ab0b79de3c46d8a60578f8c9736887.
Heh. You just described design approval. It isn't called design approval, but ROD has definitely been treated by NYSDOT as a corollary to design approval on all design-build projects. Like you outlined, this ROD pertains to all phases of the project and not only Phase 1.Quote
Assuming NYSDOT is taking the Design-Bid-Build approach, the next step would be to flesh out the exact design details for each of the project elements in order to create a complete set of plans, drawings, and specifications needed for construction.
Now if NYSDOT is going the Design-Build route, then they may already have a preliminary set of plans, drawings, and specifications (say...35% design, or maybe up to 65%), but then the Design-Build contractor would then finalize the design and, once their design submittal is approved by NYSDOT, begin construction.
Please read the thread again and review the details I posted about how the construction contracts are laid out. That said, some are design-build and some are not. I can update the post when I'm back in the office.
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 01, 2022, 09:24:40 AMQuote from: Rothman on May 31, 2022, 11:42:22 PMSounds like a difference of semantics. So "design approval" really means approval to start design, not so much the "design has been approved."Quote from: abqtraveler on May 31, 2022, 11:22:39 PMQuote from: Rothman on May 31, 2022, 10:38:35 PMNot exactly. The ROD signifies the approved alternative for the proposed action, which in this case, is to reroute I-81 along I-481 and convert the existing I-81 freeway inside I-481 to a boulevard, to be designated Business Loop 81. With the FEIS published and the ROD signed, now NYSDOT can move to final design.Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 31, 2022, 10:37:36 PMEssentially, ROD is design approval. On to final design...
It is official: https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/i-81-plan-reaches-final-destination-officials-issue-final-stamp-of-approval-for-grid/ar-AAXVTJC?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a3ab0b79de3c46d8a60578f8c9736887.
Heh. You just described design approval. It isn't called design approval, but ROD has definitely been treated by NYSDOT as a corollary to design approval on all design-build projects. Like you outlined, this ROD pertains to all phases of the project and not only Phase 1.Quote
Assuming NYSDOT is taking the Design-Bid-Build approach, the next step would be to flesh out the exact design details for each of the project elements in order to create a complete set of plans, drawings, and specifications needed for construction.
Now if NYSDOT is going the Design-Build route, then they may already have a preliminary set of plans, drawings, and specifications (say...35% design, or maybe up to 65%), but then the Design-Build contractor would then finalize the design and, once their design submittal is approved by NYSDOT, begin construction.
Please read the thread again and review the details I posted about how the construction contracts are laid out. That said, some are design-build and some are not. I can update the post when I'm back in the office.
Quote from: Rothman on June 01, 2022, 10:24:22 AMFrankly speaking, official/traditional/established terminology is often confusing to the outsiders. So such clarifications are really appreciated by those not in the field.
So, it isn't a matter of semantics, but using the official terminology of federal-aid project development and design.
Quote from: kalvado on June 01, 2022, 10:49:54 AMPlease read the thread and see how this last discussion started.Quote from: Rothman on June 01, 2022, 10:24:22 AMFrankly speaking, official/traditional/established terminology is often confusing to the outsiders. So such clarifications are really appreciated by those not in the field.
So, it isn't a matter of semantics, but using the official terminology of federal-aid project development and design.
Quote from: Rothman on June 01, 2022, 10:57:37 AMQuote from: kalvado on June 01, 2022, 10:49:54 AMPlease read the thread and see how this last discussion started.Quote from: Rothman on June 01, 2022, 10:24:22 AMFrankly speaking, official/traditional/established terminology is often confusing to the outsiders. So such clarifications are really appreciated by those not in the field.
So, it isn't a matter of semantics, but using the official terminology of federal-aid project development and design.
Quote from: kalvado on June 01, 2022, 11:37:10 AMQuote from: Rothman on June 01, 2022, 10:57:37 AMQuote from: kalvado on June 01, 2022, 10:49:54 AMPlease read the thread and see how this last discussion started.Quote from: Rothman on June 01, 2022, 10:24:22 AMFrankly speaking, official/traditional/established terminology is often confusing to the outsiders. So such clarifications are really appreciated by those not in the field.
So, it isn't a matter of semantics, but using the official terminology of federal-aid project development and design.
Sure I did. I am just trying to politely point out that semantics confusion over terminology is unfortunately pretty common, and some wording which is crystal clear for you, is not for those outside of DOT. It may be irritating, but that is how things work, unfortunately...
Feel free to return the favor when we discuss, for example, hydrogen steel embrittlement in Daddy's bridge bolts...
Quote from: Rothman on June 01, 2022, 10:24:22 AM
"Design approval" is a professional term meaning the completion of project development/preliminary design (engineering phases I-IV, final design being phases V-VI). It is defined as part of the federal-aid/NEPA process. You can't authorize federal funds without a design approval date, either projected before your design report is done (not to be confused with PS&E), or as an actual after PE is completed.
So, it isn't a matter of semantics, but using the official terminology of federal-aid project development and design.
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 01, 2022, 03:02:03 PMQuote from: Rothman on June 01, 2022, 10:24:22 AM
"Design approval" is a professional term meaning the completion of project development/preliminary design (engineering phases I-IV, final design being phases V-VI). It is defined as part of the federal-aid/NEPA process. You can't authorize federal funds without a design approval date, either projected before your design report is done (not to be confused with PS&E), or as an actual after PE is completed.
So, it isn't a matter of semantics, but using the official terminology of federal-aid project development and design.
Interesting. I thought you couldn't even start design work until the NEPA process was completed, but from your explanation, it looks as if there has to be a certain level of design completed to enable proper analysis of the proposed alternatives presented as part of the EIS.
Quote from: Rothman on May 23, 2022, 02:18:13 PM
Like I said, only Phase 1 was approved for funding so far. Phase 1 consists of the following projects, which will be posted to the NYSDOT site after the tedium of the actual programming is worked out now that they've been added to the TIP/STIP. All these PINs and information were presented to the public through the MPO process and costs are from the approved amended projects, which are found on SMTC's website:
350190: Convert I-481 to I-81, I-81 North Of I-690, $321.35m to have construction authorized this FFY (includes northern I-81/I-481 interchange) -- D-B
350191: Convert I-481 to I-81, I-81 South of I-690, $243.35m to have construction authorized this FFY (includes southern I-81/I-481 interchange) -- D-B
350192: BL-81 Northern Section, Phase 1, $78.5m to have construction authorized next FFY. Essentially bridge work along current I-81. -- D-B-B
350193: I-690 over Crouse Ave and Irving Ave, $163m for bridge work along I-690. Construction to be authorized next FFY. -- D-B-B
350194: Business Loop 81 Southern Section, Phase 1, $140m. Construction to be authorized next FFY. Bridge/ramp work along current I-81. -- D-B-B
Phase 2 will consist of rebuilding the I-690/West St interchange and removing the viaduct and some remaining bridge work (PINs 350195 to 350197). Looking a couple of years out for construction for that. We'll see when they will be added to the TIP/STIP.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 04, 2022, 09:03:10 PMThat's north of the I-81/I-481 interchange. The first I-81 contract's construction phase is authorized, with Contract 2's authorization coming a little later this year. The I-81 project will not be changed because of this development, which has been in the works for years in one form or another.
Well, a $100 billion dollar chip plant has been announced for the Syracuse area. Maybe this freeway turning into a boulevard coinciding with this insane economic development announcement will help Syracuse turn around. I'm sure the anti car crowd won't seize the moment to use a revitalization of Syracuse directly due to this project. Lol. Very impressive announcement though:
https://www.route-fifty.com/management/2022/10/chip-maker-commits-100b-us-manufacturing-site/378047/
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 04, 2022, 09:34:33 PMIt'll spawn development in the northern suburbs.
^^^ I'm thinking this will more or less spawn development in Syracuse if built as proposed. That's a huge investment.
Quote from: Rothman on October 04, 2022, 09:23:33 PM
A lot of people in Syracuse's reaction to the article was, "We'll believe it when we see it."
Quote from: froggie on October 04, 2022, 10:27:21 PMQuote from: Rothman on October 04, 2022, 09:23:33 PM
A lot of people in Syracuse's reaction to the article was, "We'll believe it when we see it."
DestinyUSA being no small part of the reason for local skepticism. We've seen this sort of thing before.
Quote from: ixnay on October 05, 2022, 10:25:48 AMQuote from: froggie on October 04, 2022, 10:27:21 PMQuote from: Rothman on October 04, 2022, 09:23:33 PM
A lot of people in Syracuse's reaction to the article was, "We'll believe it when we see it."
DestinyUSA being no small part of the reason for local skepticism. We've seen this sort of thing before.
Why? Has that mall been/become a bust?
Quote from: webny99 on October 05, 2022, 07:45:52 PMPfft. DestinyUSA is slowly dying. There are a host of businesses that will lose their novelty in the near future and their inevitable closures will cause gaping holes in the location. Remember that the owners are also swimming in debt that they aren't able to pay back. The place is financially tenuous.Quote from: ixnay on October 05, 2022, 10:25:48 AMQuote from: froggie on October 04, 2022, 10:27:21 PMQuote from: Rothman on October 04, 2022, 09:23:33 PM
A lot of people in Syracuse's reaction to the article was, "We'll believe it when we see it."
DestinyUSA being no small part of the reason for local skepticism. We've seen this sort of thing before.
Why? Has that mall been/become a bust?
Opinions vary. It hasn't seen the level of success or influx of traffic that was anticipated, but it's not a complete bust either.
It's one of very few destinations that people from Rochester would consider day-tripping to Syracuse for, as it has a lot more family and entertainment options than anything here (WonderWorks, rope climbing course, indoor mini-golf, etc.). That's more than could be said of it before the expansion, but like many/most malls, covid was a big hit. It seemed to be on a slight rebound and plenty busy when I last visited earlier this year.
Quote from: froggie on October 04, 2022, 09:21:42 PM
Worth nothing that the article mentions the plant would be built in Clay, which means probably along or near NY 481. Besides providing jobs for those who can commute up there, the plant really won't do much for Syracuse proper.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 06, 2022, 04:25:31 PMPhase 1 is beginning and is authorized. This is construction to upgrade I-481. The actual work downtown won't start for a few years.
Will construction on Interstate 81 and the "community grid" finally begin next year? The suspence is killing me!
Quote from: TonyTrafficLight on October 06, 2022, 04:31:18 PMWe shall see. It's yet to be revealed what improvements this will trigger. Just sat in an SMTC meeting where officials were shrugging about what it means yet.Quote from: froggie on October 04, 2022, 09:21:42 PM
Worth nothing that the article mentions the plant would be built in Clay, which means probably along or near NY 481. Besides providing jobs for those who can commute up there, the plant really won't do much for Syracuse proper.
The place Micron is building in on Rt. 31 sort of in between Rt 481 & Rt 81. There will be good highway access at least.
Quote from: ixnay on October 05, 2022, 10:25:48 AMQuote from: froggie on October 04, 2022, 10:27:21 PMQuote from: Rothman on October 04, 2022, 09:23:33 PM
A lot of people in Syracuse's reaction to the article was, "We'll believe it when we see it."
DestinyUSA being no small part of the reason for local skepticism. We've seen this sort of thing before.
Why? Has that mall been/become a bust?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 10, 2022, 04:30:01 PM
Could the judge force the state to rebuild the highway or will this simply delay the project?
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on November 10, 2022, 05:12:37 PMhopefully in a few years things will start moving. Hopefully before old structure collapses.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 10, 2022, 04:30:01 PM
Could the judge force the state to rebuild the highway or will this simply delay the project?
I'm expecting the project to probably be delayed by at least a few months because of this. Maybe later next fall it will possibly be ready to start.
Quote from: Rothman on November 10, 2022, 04:26:14 PM
Ruh roh:
https://www.syracuse.com/news/2022/11/state-judge-orders-temporary-stop-to-i-81-rebuild-in-syracuse.html
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 10, 2022, 05:31:45 PMQuote from: Rothman on November 10, 2022, 04:26:14 PM
Ruh roh:
https://www.syracuse.com/news/2022/11/state-judge-orders-temporary-stop-to-i-81-rebuild-in-syracuse.html
Yeah, I thought Hochul winning reelection was the end of any debate regarding this project.
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 10, 2022, 06:09:57 PM
that group's argument is b.s. :-D they're just wasting time.
QuoteThe group argues that the state's plan would result in traffic delays and backups, "making the Community grid into Community Gridlock."
The group says forcing trucks to drive extra miles around the city or through local streets would negatively impact the environment.
Quote from: webny99 on November 10, 2022, 06:16:56 PMQuote from: silverback1065 on November 10, 2022, 06:09:57 PM
that group's argument is b.s. :-D they're just wasting time.
The article is light on details, but this part makes some sense, and is in line with concerns brought up earlier in this thread:QuoteThe group argues that the state's plan would result in traffic delays and backups, "making the Community grid into Community Gridlock."
The group says forcing trucks to drive extra miles around the city or through local streets would negatively impact the environment.
Quote from: Rothman on November 10, 2022, 06:21:44 PMQuestion is whether the environmental documents actually addressed the lawsuit concern or not - that will have to be looked into before deciding if it has merit
My bet is that the lawsuit will be found to have no merit in the end and the project will proceed. Environmental analysis was performed, NEPA followed and public process followed.
I doubt this will make much of a difference in the construction schedule, especially since Phase 1 contracts have nothing directly to do with the viaduct, but getting I-481 ready to become I-81.
Quote from: Alps on November 10, 2022, 09:28:05 PMThey did. Simple as that.Quote from: webny99 on November 10, 2022, 06:16:56 PMQuote from: silverback1065 on November 10, 2022, 06:09:57 PM
that group's argument is b.s. :-D they're just wasting time.
The article is light on details, but this part makes some sense, and is in line with concerns brought up earlier in this thread:QuoteThe group argues that the state's plan would result in traffic delays and backups, "making the Community grid into Community Gridlock."
The group says forcing trucks to drive extra miles around the city or through local streets would negatively impact the environment.Quote from: Rothman on November 10, 2022, 06:21:44 PMQuestion is whether the environmental documents actually addressed the lawsuit concern or not - that will have to be looked into before deciding if it has merit
My bet is that the lawsuit will be found to have no merit in the end and the project will proceed. Environmental analysis was performed, NEPA followed and public process followed.
I doubt this will make much of a difference in the construction schedule, especially since Phase 1 contracts have nothing directly to do with the viaduct, but getting I-481 ready to become I-81.
Quote from: Rothman on November 10, 2022, 11:06:02 PMCitation needed.Quote from: Alps on November 10, 2022, 09:28:05 PMThey did. Simple as that.Quote from: webny99 on November 10, 2022, 06:16:56 PMQuote from: silverback1065 on November 10, 2022, 06:09:57 PM
that group's argument is b.s. :-D they're just wasting time.
The article is light on details, but this part makes some sense, and is in line with concerns brought up earlier in this thread:QuoteThe group argues that the state's plan would result in traffic delays and backups, "making the Community grid into Community Gridlock."
The group says forcing trucks to drive extra miles around the city or through local streets would negatively impact the environment.Quote from: Rothman on November 10, 2022, 06:21:44 PMQuestion is whether the environmental documents actually addressed the lawsuit concern or not - that will have to be looked into before deciding if it has merit
My bet is that the lawsuit will be found to have no merit in the end and the project will proceed. Environmental analysis was performed, NEPA followed and public process followed.
I doubt this will make much of a difference in the construction schedule, especially since Phase 1 contracts have nothing directly to do with the viaduct, but getting I-481 ready to become I-81.
Quote from: Alps on November 11, 2022, 12:16:36 AMThe FEIS. :DQuote from: Rothman on November 10, 2022, 11:06:02 PMCitation needed.Quote from: Alps on November 10, 2022, 09:28:05 PMThey did. Simple as that.Quote from: webny99 on November 10, 2022, 06:16:56 PMQuote from: silverback1065 on November 10, 2022, 06:09:57 PM
that group's argument is b.s. :-D they're just wasting time.
The article is light on details, but this part makes some sense, and is in line with concerns brought up earlier in this thread:QuoteThe group argues that the state's plan would result in traffic delays and backups, "making the Community grid into Community Gridlock."
The group says forcing trucks to drive extra miles around the city or through local streets would negatively impact the environment.Quote from: Rothman on November 10, 2022, 06:21:44 PMQuestion is whether the environmental documents actually addressed the lawsuit concern or not - that will have to be looked into before deciding if it has merit
My bet is that the lawsuit will be found to have no merit in the end and the project will proceed. Environmental analysis was performed, NEPA followed and public process followed.
I doubt this will make much of a difference in the construction schedule, especially since Phase 1 contracts have nothing directly to do with the viaduct, but getting I-481 ready to become I-81.
Quote from: Rothman on November 11, 2022, 06:32:21 AMas long as the FEIS includes a study of truck diversions and the pain of increased miles compared to whatever else, fine. But you'd have to link me to it for me to vouch that.Quote from: Alps on November 11, 2022, 12:16:36 AMThe FEIS. :DQuote from: Rothman on November 10, 2022, 11:06:02 PMCitation needed.Quote from: Alps on November 10, 2022, 09:28:05 PMThey did. Simple as that.Quote from: webny99 on November 10, 2022, 06:16:56 PMQuote from: silverback1065 on November 10, 2022, 06:09:57 PM
that group's argument is b.s. :-D they're just wasting time.
The article is light on details, but this part makes some sense, and is in line with concerns brought up earlier in this thread:QuoteThe group argues that the state's plan would result in traffic delays and backups, "making the Community grid into Community Gridlock."
The group says forcing trucks to drive extra miles around the city or through local streets would negatively impact the environment.Quote from: Rothman on November 10, 2022, 06:21:44 PMQuestion is whether the environmental documents actually addressed the lawsuit concern or not - that will have to be looked into before deciding if it has merit
My bet is that the lawsuit will be found to have no merit in the end and the project will proceed. Environmental analysis was performed, NEPA followed and public process followed.
I doubt this will make much of a difference in the construction schedule, especially since Phase 1 contracts have nothing directly to do with the viaduct, but getting I-481 ready to become I-81.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 12, 2022, 07:46:59 PMPfft. Given the location of the plant, north of the I-81/I-481 northern interchange, there is no expected impact to the idea of tearing down the viaduct.
Not to mention the 100 billion dollar semi conductor plant seems like something worthy of being included when factoring future traffic growth.
QuoteThe case is scheduled to be heard Jan. 12, 2023, in the state Supreme Court in Onondaga County.
Quote from: seicer on January 14, 2023, 07:15:41 PM
I assume I-81 will be the next highway to receive mileage based exit signs?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2023, 09:49:11 PMNot for a few years. The interchanges at the north and south of I-481 have to be reconfigured first. I'm home right now, but I believe the conversion will be in 2025 and Phase 2 starts in 2026 to update I-690 and tear down the viaduct given the current schedule.
Also, Interstate 690 will get mileage-based exits as well. Will NY 690 get exit numbers as well? If so, then NY 690's terminus at NY 48/NY 631 should be mile 0, and the exit numbers should rise from there (mileage-based, of course). Finally, the $64,000 question: do they finally have a date when the Interstate 81-to-Business 81, and the Interstate 481-to-Interstate 81 conversions will occur?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2023, 09:49:11 PMThe I-690 numbers shown do include NY 690's mileage, so I would hope so, but we'll see. I haven't yet found any plans for what the exit numbers outside of the project area will be.
Also, Interstate 690 will get mileage-based exits as well. Will NY 690 get exit numbers as well? If so, then NY 690's terminus at NY 48/NY 631 should be mile 0, and the exit numbers should rise from there (mileage-based, of course). Finally, the $64,000 question: do they finally have a date when the Interstate 81-to-Business 81, and the Interstate 481-to-Interstate 81 conversions will occur?
Quote from: vdeane on January 15, 2023, 07:55:31 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2023, 09:49:11 PMThe I-690 numbers shown do include NY 690's mileage, so I would hope so, but we'll see. I haven't yet found any plans for what the exit numbers outside of the project area will be.
Also, Interstate 690 will get mileage-based exits as well. Will NY 690 get exit numbers as well? If so, then NY 690's terminus at NY 48/NY 631 should be mile 0, and the exit numbers should rise from there (mileage-based, of course). Finally, the $64,000 question: do they finally have a date when the Interstate 81-to-Business 81, and the Interstate 481-to-Interstate 81 conversions will occur?
Quote from: machias on January 16, 2023, 12:23:27 AMBut will the NY 690 portion get exit numbers, or will the exit numbers just disappear once the interstate ends?Quote from: vdeane on January 15, 2023, 07:55:31 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2023, 09:49:11 PMThe I-690 numbers shown do include NY 690's mileage, so I would hope so, but we'll see. I haven't yet found any plans for what the exit numbers outside of the project area will be.
Also, Interstate 690 will get mileage-based exits as well. Will NY 690 get exit numbers as well? If so, then NY 690's terminus at NY 48/NY 631 should be mile 0, and the exit numbers should rise from there (mileage-based, of course). Finally, the $64,000 question: do they finally have a date when the Interstate 81-to-Business 81, and the Interstate 481-to-Interstate 81 conversions will occur?
The current mile markers include NY 690 so they'll probably keep it that way. When I-690 gets the new interchange numbers it'll be the second time they've been changed.
Now, if we could just get NYSDOT R3 to not start NY 5's expressway mile markers at zero at the interchange with NY 174, but that's a separate topic.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2023, 09:49:11 PMThe would first need to reconfigure the interchanges at both ends where "current" I-481 meets I-81 to allow the through movements to go from I-81 to I-481 at one end and vice versa at the other. The southern end has a semi-directional interchange with only one lane going from I-81N to I-481N, and one lane from I-481S to I-81S. The interchange at the northern end is a cloverleaf interchange that will have to be completely reconfigured to allow the through movement from I-81S to I-481S and vice versa going in the northbound direction. The FHWA will not allow the route designations to change until, at the very least, those two interchanges are reconfigured accordingly.
Also, Interstate 690 will get mileage-based exits as well. Will NY 690 get exit numbers as well? If so, then NY 690's terminus at NY 48/NY 631 should be mile 0, and the exit numbers should rise from there (mileage-based, of course). Finally, the $64,000 question: do they finally have a date when the Interstate 81-to-Business 81, and the Interstate 481-to-Interstate 81 conversions will occur?
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 16, 2023, 04:51:54 PMI hear an echo.Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2023, 09:49:11 PMThe would first need to reconfigure the interchanges at both ends where "current" I-481 meets I-81 to allow the through movements to go from I-81 to I-481 at one end and vice versa at the other. The southern end has a semi-directional interchange with only one lane going from I-81N to I-481N, and one lane from I-481S to I-81S. The interchange at the northern end is a cloverleaf interchange that will have to be completely reconfigured to allow the through movement from I-81S to I-481S and vice versa going in the northbound direction. The FHWA will not allow the route designations to change until, at the very least, those two interchanges are reconfigured accordingly.
Also, Interstate 690 will get mileage-based exits as well. Will NY 690 get exit numbers as well? If so, then NY 690's terminus at NY 48/NY 631 should be mile 0, and the exit numbers should rise from there (mileage-based, of course). Finally, the $64,000 question: do they finally have a date when the Interstate 81-to-Business 81, and the Interstate 481-to-Interstate 81 conversions will occur?
Quote from: Rothman on January 16, 2023, 08:14:00 PMSorry, I didn't see your previous post in the thread.Quote from: abqtraveler on January 16, 2023, 04:51:54 PMI hear an echo.Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2023, 09:49:11 PMThe would first need to reconfigure the interchanges at both ends where "current" I-481 meets I-81 to allow the through movements to go from I-81 to I-481 at one end and vice versa at the other. The southern end has a semi-directional interchange with only one lane going from I-81N to I-481N, and one lane from I-481S to I-81S. The interchange at the northern end is a cloverleaf interchange that will have to be completely reconfigured to allow the through movement from I-81S to I-481S and vice versa going in the northbound direction. The FHWA will not allow the route designations to change until, at the very least, those two interchanges are reconfigured accordingly.
Also, Interstate 690 will get mileage-based exits as well. Will NY 690 get exit numbers as well? If so, then NY 690's terminus at NY 48/NY 631 should be mile 0, and the exit numbers should rise from there (mileage-based, of course). Finally, the $64,000 question: do they finally have a date when the Interstate 81-to-Business 81, and the Interstate 481-to-Interstate 81 conversions will occur?
Quote from: machias on January 16, 2023, 12:23:27 AMNY 690 could (and maybe should*) be renumbered to I-690. Yes, I realize that would leave a "dangling" end to an even numbered 3di, however, I-264 in Virginia Beach has a "dangling" end. Also, since the mile markers treat NY 690 and I-690 as one entity, why not renumber.Quote from: vdeane on January 15, 2023, 07:55:31 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2023, 09:49:11 PMThe I-690 numbers shown do include NY 690's mileage, so I would hope so, but we'll see. I haven't yet found any plans for what the exit numbers outside of the project area will be.
Also, Interstate 690 will get mileage-based exits as well. Will NY 690 get exit numbers as well? If so, then NY 690's terminus at NY 48/NY 631 should be mile 0, and the exit numbers should rise from there (mileage-based, of course). Finally, the $64,000 question: do they finally have a date when the Interstate 81-to-Business 81, and the Interstate 481-to-Interstate 81 conversions will occur?
The current mile markers include NY 690 so they'll probably keep it that way. When I-690 gets the new interchange numbers it'll be the second time they've been changed.
Now, if we could just get NYSDOT R3 to not start NY 5's expressway mile markers at zero at the interchange with NY 174, but that's a separate topic.
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 17, 2023, 08:14:49 AMThat's exactly why we had mere 50 pages of discussion, and only maybe 30 of them about how traffic would be affected - that is before any dirt got actually moved.
Seems like this project will be similar to the inner loop removal. that project appears to have gone well and people liked it. and thru traffic was preserved.
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 17, 2023, 08:14:49 AM
Seems like this project will be similar to the inner loop removal. that project appears to have gone well and people liked it. and thru traffic was preserved.
Quote from: amroad17 on January 16, 2023, 11:26:16 PMQuote from: machias on January 16, 2023, 12:23:27 AMNY 690 could (and maybe should*) be renumbered to I-690. Yes, I realize that would leave a "dangling" end to an even numbered 3di, however, I-264 in Virginia Beach has a "dangling" end. Also, since the mile markers treat NY 690 and I-690 as one entity, why not renumber.Quote from: vdeane on January 15, 2023, 07:55:31 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2023, 09:49:11 PMThe I-690 numbers shown do include NY 690's mileage, so I would hope so, but we'll see. I haven't yet found any plans for what the exit numbers outside of the project area will be.
Also, Interstate 690 will get mileage-based exits as well. Will NY 690 get exit numbers as well? If so, then NY 690's terminus at NY 48/NY 631 should be mile 0, and the exit numbers should rise from there (mileage-based, of course). Finally, the $64,000 question: do they finally have a date when the Interstate 81-to-Business 81, and the Interstate 481-to-Interstate 81 conversions will occur?
The current mile markers include NY 690 so they'll probably keep it that way. When I-690 gets the new interchange numbers it'll be the second time they've been changed.
Now, if we could just get NYSDOT R3 to not start NY 5's expressway mile markers at zero at the interchange with NY 174, but that's a separate topic.
As far as the NY 5 Camillus Bypass, unless exit tabs will be installed, there would be no advantage to changing the mile markers. IMHO, the mile markers should not be changed nor exit tabs need to be installed. It is a 6 mile freeway serving the western Syracuse suburbs. Motorists using the freeway would probably not care that they are between 215.5-221.8 miles from the NY/PA line.
*OMG, I "shoulded". :D
Quote from: webny99 on January 17, 2023, 12:20:48 PMQuote from: silverback1065 on January 17, 2023, 08:14:49 AM
Seems like this project will be similar to the inner loop removal. that project appears to have gone well and people liked it. and thru traffic was preserved.
As I recall, this has been discussed at length earlier in the thread, but suffice to say "similar" is a big stretch.
Rochester is well north of the Thruway so it doesn't have nearly as much thru traffic as Syracuse to begin with, and Rochester also has I-490 to serve traffic coming to/from the city. As such, volumes on the Inner Loop were low enough to be easily handled by a surface street. That's not the case with I-81 at all. Removal of I-490 would be a more apt comparison, and even then, I-490 is mostly commuter traffic with a fraction of the cross-state, long-distance, and truck traffic that I-81 has.
There was also a strong connectivity aspect in Rochester, as the Inner Loop had "strangled" the CBD and disconnected it from the rest of the city, which kept the CBD as a "business hours only" area with limited potential. The removal provided new development opportunities, improved walkability, and much better connectivity to the relatively thriving communities to the east. There's a bit of that same dynamic in Syracuse, but not nearly to the same extent. Syracuse CBD already spans both sides of I-81 and has better connectivity as it stands than Rochester had before the Inner Loop removal.
Quote from: ixnay on January 17, 2023, 08:40:51 PMI would be really surprised if unmet demand suddenly finds a lot of new areas for growth. It's not that there is a lot of disposable income out there in Syracuse looking for a chance to be burnt.Quote from: webny99 on January 17, 2023, 12:20:48 PMQuote from: silverback1065 on January 17, 2023, 08:14:49 AM
Seems like this project will be similar to the inner loop removal. that project appears to have gone well and people liked it. and thru traffic was preserved.
As I recall, this has been discussed at length earlier in the thread, but suffice to say "similar" is a big stretch.
Rochester is well north of the Thruway so it doesn't have nearly as much thru traffic as Syracuse to begin with, and Rochester also has I-490 to serve traffic coming to/from the city. As such, volumes on the Inner Loop were low enough to be easily handled by a surface street. That's not the case with I-81 at all. Removal of I-490 would be a more apt comparison, and even then, I-490 is mostly commuter traffic with a fraction of the cross-state, long-distance, and truck traffic that I-81 has.
There was also a strong connectivity aspect in Rochester, as the Inner Loop had "strangled" the CBD and disconnected it from the rest of the city, which kept the CBD as a "business hours only" area with limited potential. The removal provided new development opportunities, improved walkability, and much better connectivity to the relatively thriving communities to the east. There's a bit of that same dynamic in Syracuse, but not nearly to the same extent. Syracuse CBD already spans both sides of I-81 and has better connectivity as it stands than Rochester had before the Inner Loop removal.
How about nightlife in downtown Rochester? Did removing the IL improve that? And will removing the 81 viaduct do the same for downtown Syracuse and the Syracuse Univ. neighborhood?
Quote from: ixnay on January 17, 2023, 08:40:51 PMYes, to the former. Not so much for the latter. The Hill is its own little bubble with a little strip on Marshall and then the big strip on Westcott. Tearing down the viaduct won't affect that much.Quote from: webny99 on January 17, 2023, 12:20:48 PMQuote from: silverback1065 on January 17, 2023, 08:14:49 AM
Seems like this project will be similar to the inner loop removal. that project appears to have gone well and people liked it. and thru traffic was preserved.
As I recall, this has been discussed at length earlier in the thread, but suffice to say "similar" is a big stretch.
Rochester is well north of the Thruway so it doesn't have nearly as much thru traffic as Syracuse to begin with, and Rochester also has I-490 to serve traffic coming to/from the city. As such, volumes on the Inner Loop were low enough to be easily handled by a surface street. That's not the case with I-81 at all. Removal of I-490 would be a more apt comparison, and even then, I-490 is mostly commuter traffic with a fraction of the cross-state, long-distance, and truck traffic that I-81 has.
There was also a strong connectivity aspect in Rochester, as the Inner Loop had "strangled" the CBD and disconnected it from the rest of the city, which kept the CBD as a "business hours only" area with limited potential. The removal provided new development opportunities, improved walkability, and much better connectivity to the relatively thriving communities to the east. There's a bit of that same dynamic in Syracuse, but not nearly to the same extent. Syracuse CBD already spans both sides of I-81 and has better connectivity as it stands than Rochester had before the Inner Loop removal.
How about nightlife in downtown Rochester? Did removing the IL improve that? And will removing the 81 viaduct do the same for downtown Syracuse and the Syracuse Univ. neighborhood?
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 18, 2023, 08:13:54 AMLast time I checked, Illinois is going to stay where it is in foreseeable future.
last off topic question. are they going to remove the rest of the IL? :hmmm:
Quote from: kalvado on January 18, 2023, 08:17:07 AMQuote from: silverback1065 on January 18, 2023, 08:13:54 AMLast time I checked, Illinois is going to stay where it is in foreseeable future.
last off topic question. are they going to remove the rest of the IL? :hmmm:
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 18, 2023, 09:23:22 AMNot really. I found it to be apt. And your unintended pun was amusing.Quote from: kalvado on January 18, 2023, 08:17:07 AMQuote from: silverback1065 on January 18, 2023, 08:13:54 AMLast time I checked, Illinois is going to stay where it is in foreseeable future.
last off topic question. are they going to remove the rest of the IL? :hmmm:
Was that a joke? it fell flat.
Quote from: webny99 on January 18, 2023, 11:03:37 AM
Joking aside, the rest of the Inner Loop is going to be removed and is expected to move forward in the next few years:
https://www.innerloopnorth.com/resources
This is the preferred alternative which will advance to final design and engineering:
https://www.innerloopnorth.com/_files/ugd/86b242_cda457306e6545a5a39984fe0c81945e.pdf
Quote from: webny99 on February 15, 2023, 10:31:41 PMI'd be lying if that thought hadn't crossed my mind as well...especially as SMTC voted to add the projects to the TIP.
Interesting. Obviously the viaduct is at the center of everything regardless of what happens with I-81 being rerouted onto I-481. I know I'm fantasizing a bit here, but things would get very interesting if the changes to I-481 occur but the viaduct can't come down as planned.
Quote from: webny99 on February 15, 2023, 10:31:41 PMEspecially as the southern interchange (current 16A) isn't going to be freeway/freeway for all movements.
Interesting. Obviously the viaduct is at the center of everything regardless of what happens with I-81 being rerouted onto I-481. I know I'm fantasizing a bit here, but things would get very interesting if the changes to I-481 occur but the viaduct can't come down as planned.
Quote from: vdeane on February 16, 2023, 12:50:17 PMBreezewood!!!Quote from: webny99 on February 15, 2023, 10:31:41 PMEspecially as the southern interchange (current 16A) isn't going to be freeway/freeway for all movements.
Interesting. Obviously the viaduct is at the center of everything regardless of what happens with I-81 being rerouted onto I-481. I know I'm fantasizing a bit here, but things would get very interesting if the changes to I-481 occur but the viaduct can't come down as planned.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 16, 2023, 03:15:16 PMSyracuse has been declining in population and the road is falling apart. Unless New York gets our whole millitary budget to build a six lane underground I-81 through Syracuse it ain't happening.
I know this would face a TON of opposition, but I'd love if I-81 could get expanded to 6 lanes through downtown.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 03:18:35 PMQuote from: interstatefan990 on February 16, 2023, 03:15:16 PMSyracuse has been declining in population and the road is falling apart. Unless New York gets our whole millitary budget to build a six lane underground I-81 through Syracuse it ain't happening.
I know this would face a TON of opposition, but I'd love if I-81 could get expanded to 6 lanes through downtown.
Quote from: webny99 on February 16, 2023, 03:36:31 PMIt's probably been mentioned already but how many lanes is the replacement boluevard? How much money would replacing it cost vs the current project? And how crowded is I-81 through Syracuse now, as well as I-481?Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 03:18:35 PMQuote from: interstatefan990 on February 16, 2023, 03:15:16 PMSyracuse has been declining in population and the road is falling apart. Unless New York gets our whole millitary budget to build a six lane underground I-81 through Syracuse it ain't happening.
I know this would face a TON of opposition, but I'd love if I-81 could get expanded to 6 lanes through downtown.
The viaduct's biggest problems are its age and the substandard weave movements at the Harrison/Adams and I-690 interchanges. I would be totally fine with a potential replacement being only four lanes, as that would solve both of the above problems. In fact there are many highway segments throughout the state that I'd rather see get six lanes.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 03:38:03 PM
... how many lanes is the replacement boluevard? How much money would replacing it cost vs the current project? And how crowded is I-81 through Syracuse now, as well as I-481?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 03:18:35 PMSyracuse has been gaining population slightly over the past seven years.Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 16, 2023, 03:15:16 PMSyracuse has been declining in population and the road is falling apart. Unless New York gets our whole millitary budget to build a six lane underground I-81 through Syracuse it ain't happening.
I know this would face a TON of opposition, but I'd love if I-81 could get expanded to 6 lanes through downtown.
Quote from: webny99 on February 16, 2023, 04:00:36 PM53 pages is a lot to read so thanks for the explanation. From what you told me it seems like the city's network should manage without I-81 through the city. Many people say that if we remove freeways we should improve public transit to make up for it. Not sure how good Syracuse's public transit is but IMO every freeway removal project should also include improvements to public transit to help mitigate the traffic.
Yes, that has all been discussed before... most of it at length. The replacement boulevard would be, to my knowledge, four lanes; the boulevard is somewhat cheaper than the viaduct replacement but both are expensive projects even by NY standards.
The viaduct is usually fine, traffic-wise, in my experience. Heading southbound, the transition from I-690 to I-81 is annoying because the curves are substandard and it drops to a single lane for a short span, but the overall volumes are manageable for a four-lane freeway. There are a few trouble spots on I-481 that could use widening, especially near I-690, but nothing like the traffic problems seen in larger cities.
Quote from: Rothman on February 16, 2023, 04:02:15 PMOh really? Maybe it's the University.Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 03:18:35 PMSyracuse has been gaining population slightly over the past seven years.Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 16, 2023, 03:15:16 PMSyracuse has been declining in population and the road is falling apart. Unless New York gets our whole millitary budget to build a six lane underground I-81 through Syracuse it ain't happening.
I know this would face a TON of opposition, but I'd love if I-81 could get expanded to 6 lanes through downtown.
The viaduct will come down.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 03:18:35 PMQuote from: interstatefan990 on February 16, 2023, 03:15:16 PMSyracuse has been declining in population and the road is falling apart. Unless New York gets our whole millitary budget to build a six lane underground I-81 through Syracuse it ain't happening.
I know this would face a TON of opposition, but I'd love if I-81 could get expanded to 6 lanes through downtown.
Quote from: Rothman on February 16, 2023, 04:02:15 PM
The viaduct will come down.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 04:30:47 PMYes.
Aren't they also improving I-481 as part of the plan?
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 16, 2023, 04:29:36 PMQuote from: Rothman on February 16, 2023, 04:02:15 PM
The viaduct will come down.
If that's true, I'd at least want to see something good take its place.
Quote from: Rothman on February 16, 2023, 04:37:57 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 04:30:47 PMYes.
Aren't they also improving I-481 as part of the plan?
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 16, 2023, 04:41:22 PMIf the I-81 traffic was going dowtown they wouldn't be taking I-81 all the way through anyway.Quote from: Rothman on February 16, 2023, 04:37:57 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 04:30:47 PMYes.
Aren't they also improving I-481 as part of the plan?
Isn't the plan also to reroute I-81 traffic onto I-481? The addition of a third lane still might not even be enough to handle the increased traffic, especially with rush hour IMO.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 04:04:25 PMQuote from: webny99 on February 16, 2023, 04:00:36 PM53 pages is a lot to read so thanks for the explanation. From what you told me it seems like the city's network should manage without I-81 through the city. Many people say that if we remove freeways we should improve public transit to make up for it. Not sure how good Syracuse's public transit is but IMO every freeway removal project should also include improvements to public transit to help mitigate the traffic.
Yes, that has all been discussed before... most of it at length. The replacement boulevard would be, to my knowledge, four lanes; the boulevard is somewhat cheaper than the viaduct replacement but both are expensive projects even by NY standards.
The viaduct is usually fine, traffic-wise, in my experience. Heading southbound, the transition from I-690 to I-81 is annoying because the curves are substandard and it drops to a single lane for a short span, but the overall volumes are manageable for a four-lane freeway. There are a few trouble spots on I-481 that could use widening, especially near I-690, but nothing like the traffic problems seen in larger cities.
Quote from: webny99 on February 16, 2023, 06:33:49 PMFor Rochester to Binghamton, it adds an extra 9 minutes. Not awful honestly. And I don't think that Syracuse residents who live in the city all the time really care if Rochester-Binghamton traffic has to take an extra 9 minutes. You live in Rochester, and looking at the map, this mostly affects Rochester bound traffic the most. Doesn't affect Buffalo-east traffic that much.Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 04:04:25 PMQuote from: webny99 on February 16, 2023, 04:00:36 PM53 pages is a lot to read so thanks for the explanation. From what you told me it seems like the city's network should manage without I-81 through the city. Many people say that if we remove freeways we should improve public transit to make up for it. Not sure how good Syracuse's public transit is but IMO every freeway removal project should also include improvements to public transit to help mitigate the traffic.
Yes, that has all been discussed before... most of it at length. The replacement boulevard would be, to my knowledge, four lanes; the boulevard is somewhat cheaper than the viaduct replacement but both are expensive projects even by NY standards.
The viaduct is usually fine, traffic-wise, in my experience. Heading southbound, the transition from I-690 to I-81 is annoying because the curves are substandard and it drops to a single lane for a short span, but the overall volumes are manageable for a four-lane freeway. There are a few trouble spots on I-481 that could use widening, especially near I-690, but nothing like the traffic problems seen in larger cities.
The city should be able to manage without I-81 - that's why they're supportive of the grid. Plus, anyone coming to the city is going to be using surface streets anyways. The problem is the traffic from the suburbs and surrounding cities who use the viaduct to get to and through and around Syracuse. North/south thru traffic can use I-481, but that doesn't account for the western suburbs and the areas west of Syracuse (including Rochester and sometimes Buffalo) who currently use the viaduct to get to I-81 south. This will majorly affect a trip from Rochester to Binghamton, just as one example.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on February 16, 2023, 08:58:02 PM90-481-81 would still be faster than 390-86.
Would not Rochester to Binghamton take 390
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on February 16, 2023, 08:58:02 PMI-390 is longer than even taking I-481, except for the west side for which it is about the same (and even then, often still a minute longer). For the east side, it's no contest. This is true even in Henrietta.
Would not Rochester to Binghamton take 390
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 08:31:40 PM
For Rochester to Binghamton, it adds an extra 9 minutes. Not awful honestly. And I don't think that Syracuse residents who live in the city all the time really care if Rochester-Binghamton traffic has to take an extra 9 minutes. You live in Rochester, and looking at the map, this mostly affects Rochester bound traffic the most. Doesn't affect Buffalo-east traffic that much.
Quote from: webny99 on February 16, 2023, 10:15:09 PMBuffalo to Binghamton is 6 minutes faster using US 20A than I-81. Sure Cortland, but how much Buffalo-Cortland traffic is there? Like anything in our society, you have to weigh potential benefits and drawbacks. And maybe the extra minutes needed to detour isn't important enough to outweighs the benefits of tearing it down. Not everyone is a roadgeek you know.Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 08:31:40 PM
For Rochester to Binghamton, it adds an extra 9 minutes. Not awful honestly. And I don't think that Syracuse residents who live in the city all the time really care if Rochester-Binghamton traffic has to take an extra 9 minutes. You live in Rochester, and looking at the map, this mostly affects Rochester bound traffic the most. Doesn't affect Buffalo-east traffic that much.
Well, here we go again. :cool:
Yes, I am well aware that it affects Rochester the most - and I'm not expecting anyone in Syracuse to care about traffic from Rochester, but from a traffic and engineering standpoint, they are all users of the road and it's part of a much larger road network, so all users of the road should considered, not just the locals. 9 minutes is a lot for medium-distance trip or a commute (remember, this affects anyone who commutes on the viaduct too, so it could go from a 10 minute trip to 18-19 in extreme cases), and there's not really any way to save time on alternate routes.
And it affects the Buffalo area just as much for anyone that takes the Thruway to Syracuse and then heads south. Some Buffalo traffic can use US 20A>NY 36>I-390 to get to Binghamton, but that's not faster from north of Buffalo, and it's also not viable for traffic heading to Cortland or anywhere else north of Binghamton.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 16, 2023, 04:41:22 PMThe only rush hour snafu in Syracuse is downtown at the Adams and Harrison ramps on I-81. People will still take BL 81 downtown.Quote from: Rothman on February 16, 2023, 04:37:57 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 04:30:47 PMYes.
Aren't they also improving I-481 as part of the plan?
Isn't the plan also to reroute I-81 traffic onto I-481? The addition of a third lane still might not even be enough to handle the increased traffic, especially with rush hour IMO.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 10:22:17 PMPlease check the terrain southwest of Syracuse...
In a freeway system like in Europe where freeways stay out of downtowns, maybe I-81 would be routed to the west of downtown Syracuse. Basically forming a loop with I-481 without going through downtown. That would be best in suppose. Unsure about 690.
Quote from: Rothman on February 16, 2023, 10:23:23 PMI see. Seems like my proposal would be tough then.Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 10:22:17 PMPlease check the terrain southwest of Syracuse...
In a freeway system like in Europe where freeways stay out of downtowns, maybe I-81 would be routed to the west of downtown Syracuse. Basically forming a loop with I-481 without going through downtown. That would be best in suppose. Unsure about 690.
Quote from: webny99 on February 16, 2023, 10:24:23 PMYeah, and unless those roads start getting clogged, they can absolutely work for travel. Not every corridor has to be 100% freeway.
Also since we're getting way into the weeds here (although this will likely have a practical bearing someday), there are also alternates using backroads to "cut the corner" and avoid the Syracuse area altogether. This typically involves taking Thruway Exit 41 to NY 318 to NY 5/US 20, and then either local roads to NY 34 to NY 90, or going through Auburn (not recommended during daytime hours) and then heading south on NY 41, rejoining I-81 in Homer. These alternatives save about 20 miles and are within a couple of minutes time-wise, as seen here (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/42.9650072,-76.8470017/42.6207158,-76.181351/@42.7671737,-76.6705767,10z/data=!4m3!4m2!3e0!5i1!5m1!1e1) (at the time of this post).
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 10:20:02 PM
Buffalo to Binghamton is 6 minutes faster using US 20A than I-81. Sure Cortland, but how much Buffalo-Cortland traffic is there?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 10:20:02 PM
Like anything in our society, you have to weigh potential benefits and drawbacks. And maybe the extra minutes needed to detour isn't important enough to outweighs the benefits of tearing it down. Not everyone is a roadgeek you know.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 10:28:40 PM
Yeah, and unless those roads start getting clogged, they can absolutely work for travel. Not every corridor has to be 100% freeway.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 10:28:40 PMRight, so let's put 75 miles of a trip between New York City and Rochester (two major cities in New York) on two lane road, and eliminate what is currently an all interstate highway routing.Quote from: webny99 on February 16, 2023, 10:24:23 PMYeah, and unless those roads start getting clogged, they can absolutely work for travel. Not every corridor has to be 100% freeway.
Also since we're getting way into the weeds here (although this will likely have a practical bearing someday), there are also alternates using backroads to "cut the corner" and avoid the Syracuse area altogether. This typically involves taking Thruway Exit 41 to NY 318 to NY 5/US 20, and then either local roads to NY 34 to NY 90, or going through Auburn (not recommended during daytime hours) and then heading south on NY 41, rejoining I-81 in Homer. These alternatives save about 20 miles and are within a couple of minutes time-wise, as seen here (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/42.9650072,-76.8470017/42.6207158,-76.181351/@42.7671737,-76.6705767,10z/data=!4m3!4m2!3e0!5i1!5m1!1e1) (at the time of this post).
Quote from: froggie on February 16, 2023, 11:53:57 PMDid NYSDOT's studies keep in mind that most people would be taking I-690, not directly from I-81 to I-90?
As webny said upthread, "here we go again".
First off, sprjus, there's already an all-Interstate routing between NYC and Rochester that does not involve I-81 at all.
Second, you're not talking about a large volume of traffic beween the south and west of Syracuse. NYSDOT's OD studies concluded that only a couple thousand vehicles a day are making the connection between 81 to/from the south and 90 to/from the west...and it stands to reason that not all of them are going beyond Binghamton or all the way to Rochester.
Third, the route webny suggests is notably LESS than 75 miles. Though if I were to do such and wanted to avoid Syracuse, I'd probably cut between Exit 40 and Tully instead.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 16, 2023, 10:49:02 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 10:28:40 PMRight, so let's put 75 miles of a trip between New York City and Rochester (two major cities in New York) on two lane road, and eliminate what is currently an all interstate highway routing.Quote from: webny99 on February 16, 2023, 10:24:23 PMYeah, and unless those roads start getting clogged, they can absolutely work for travel. Not every corridor has to be 100% freeway.
Also since we're getting way into the weeds here (although this will likely have a practical bearing someday), there are also alternates using backroads to "cut the corner" and avoid the Syracuse area altogether. This typically involves taking Thruway Exit 41 to NY 318 to NY 5/US 20, and then either local roads to NY 34 to NY 90, or going through Auburn (not recommended during daytime hours) and then heading south on NY 41, rejoining I-81 in Homer. These alternatives save about 20 miles and are within a couple of minutes time-wise, as seen here (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/42.9650072,-76.8470017/42.6207158,-76.181351/@42.7671737,-76.6705767,10z/data=!4m3!4m2!3e0!5i1!5m1!1e1) (at the time of this post).
Perfect logic.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 17, 2023, 12:18:24 AMYes.Quote from: froggie on February 16, 2023, 11:53:57 PMDid NYSDOT's studies keep in mind that most people would be taking I-690, not directly from I-81 to I-90?
As webny said upthread, "here we go again".
First off, sprjus, there's already an all-Interstate routing between NYC and Rochester that does not involve I-81 at all.
Second, you're not talking about a large volume of traffic beween the south and west of Syracuse. NYSDOT's OD studies concluded that only a couple thousand vehicles a day are making the connection between 81 to/from the south and 90 to/from the west...and it stands to reason that not all of them are going beyond Binghamton or all the way to Rochester.
Third, the route webny suggests is notably LESS than 75 miles. Though if I were to do such and wanted to avoid Syracuse, I'd probably cut between Exit 40 and Tully instead.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 17, 2023, 02:09:46 AMThe Thruway north of Albany?Quote from: sprjus4 on February 16, 2023, 10:49:02 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 10:28:40 PMRight, so let's put 75 miles of a trip between New York City and Rochester (two major cities in New York) on two lane road, and eliminate what is currently an all interstate highway routing.Quote from: webny99 on February 16, 2023, 10:24:23 PMYeah, and unless those roads start getting clogged, they can absolutely work for travel. Not every corridor has to be 100% freeway.
Also since we're getting way into the weeds here (although this will likely have a practical bearing someday), there are also alternates using backroads to "cut the corner" and avoid the Syracuse area altogether. This typically involves taking Thruway Exit 41 to NY 318 to NY 5/US 20, and then either local roads to NY 34 to NY 90, or going through Auburn (not recommended during daytime hours) and then heading south on NY 41, rejoining I-81 in Homer. These alternatives save about 20 miles and are within a couple of minutes time-wise, as seen here (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/42.9650072,-76.8470017/42.6207158,-76.181351/@42.7671737,-76.6705767,10z/data=!4m3!4m2!3e0!5i1!5m1!1e1) (at the time of this post).
Perfect logic.
Coming from someone who's made the drive from the NYC area to Rochester and back a good number of times, this isn't the worst thing. The Thruway north of Albany in its most rural sections is pretty drab to drive through, so any surface road detour sounds nice.
Also, if you're planning to not do just 87 and 90, and instead stop in any of the Finger Lakes southern cities/towns, you're going to need to use two lane roads for a good distance anyway. Ithaca is a good example. This is why it's a wish of mine to see more of NY-13 between Elmira and Cortland upgraded to freeway status, or at least limited-access expressway, wherever possible. The same is true for NY-96 between Ithaca and I-90. I think Ithaca, being one of the largest cities in NY without an interstate, deserves better access to the rest of the system. It could even lead to a rejuvenation of the area economically, and allow more to enjoy its natural beauty.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 17, 2023, 12:59:33 AM
This would sure be great if they kept the viaduct!
Quote from: froggie on February 16, 2023, 11:53:57 PM
First off, sprjus, there's already an all-Interstate routing between NYC and Rochester that does not involve I-81 at all.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 17, 2023, 12:18:24 AMQuote from: froggie on February 16, 2023, 11:53:57 PMDid NYSDOT's studies keep in mind that most people would be taking I-690, not directly from I-81 to I-90?
Second, you're not talking about a large volume of traffic beween the south and west of Syracuse. NYSDOT's OD studies concluded that only a couple thousand vehicles a day are making the connection between 81 to/from the south and 90 to/from the west...and it stands to reason that not all of them are going beyond Binghamton or all the way to Rochester.
...
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2023, 07:00:53 AMQuote from: interstatefan990 on February 17, 2023, 02:09:46 AMThe Thruway north of Albany?Quote from: sprjus4 on February 16, 2023, 10:49:02 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 10:28:40 PMRight, so let's put 75 miles of a trip between New York City and Rochester (two major cities in New York) on two lane road, and eliminate what is currently an all interstate highway routing.Quote from: webny99 on February 16, 2023, 10:24:23 PMYeah, and unless those roads start getting clogged, they can absolutely work for travel. Not every corridor has to be 100% freeway.
Also since we're getting way into the weeds here (although this will likely have a practical bearing someday), there are also alternates using backroads to "cut the corner" and avoid the Syracuse area altogether. This typically involves taking Thruway Exit 41 to NY 318 to NY 5/US 20, and then either local roads to NY 34 to NY 90, or going through Auburn (not recommended during daytime hours) and then heading south on NY 41, rejoining I-81 in Homer. These alternatives save about 20 miles and are within a couple of minutes time-wise, as seen here (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/42.9650072,-76.8470017/42.6207158,-76.181351/@42.7671737,-76.6705767,10z/data=!4m3!4m2!3e0!5i1!5m1!1e1) (at the time of this post).
Perfect logic.
Coming from someone who's made the drive from the NYC area to Rochester and back a good number of times, this isn't the worst thing. The Thruway north of Albany in its most rural sections is pretty drab to drive through, so any surface road detour sounds nice.
Also, if you're planning to not do just 87 and 90, and instead stop in any of the Finger Lakes southern cities/towns, you're going to need to use two lane roads for a good distance anyway. Ithaca is a good example. This is why it's a wish of mine to see more of NY-13 between Elmira and Cortland upgraded to freeway status, or at least limited-access expressway, wherever possible. The same is true for NY-96 between Ithaca and I-90. I think Ithaca, being one of the largest cities in NY without an interstate, deserves better access to the rest of the system. It could even lead to a rejuvenation of the area economically, and allow more to enjoy its natural beauty.
Taking I-87 to I-90 between NYC and Rochester?
Stopping in Ithaca while using I-87 and I-90?
What is this nonsense?
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 17, 2023, 12:45:21 PMQuote from: Rothman on February 17, 2023, 07:00:53 AMQuote from: interstatefan990 on February 17, 2023, 02:09:46 AMThe Thruway north of Albany?Quote from: sprjus4 on February 16, 2023, 10:49:02 PMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2023, 10:28:40 PMRight, so let's put 75 miles of a trip between New York City and Rochester (two major cities in New York) on two lane road, and eliminate what is currently an all interstate highway routing.Quote from: webny99 on February 16, 2023, 10:24:23 PMYeah, and unless those roads start getting clogged, they can absolutely work for travel. Not every corridor has to be 100% freeway.
Also since we're getting way into the weeds here (although this will likely have a practical bearing someday), there are also alternates using backroads to "cut the corner" and avoid the Syracuse area altogether. This typically involves taking Thruway Exit 41 to NY 318 to NY 5/US 20, and then either local roads to NY 34 to NY 90, or going through Auburn (not recommended during daytime hours) and then heading south on NY 41, rejoining I-81 in Homer. These alternatives save about 20 miles and are within a couple of minutes time-wise, as seen here (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/42.9650072,-76.8470017/42.6207158,-76.181351/@42.7671737,-76.6705767,10z/data=!4m3!4m2!3e0!5i1!5m1!1e1) (at the time of this post).
Perfect logic.
Coming from someone who's made the drive from the NYC area to Rochester and back a good number of times, this isn't the worst thing. The Thruway north of Albany in its most rural sections is pretty drab to drive through, so any surface road detour sounds nice.
Also, if you're planning to not do just 87 and 90, and instead stop in any of the Finger Lakes southern cities/towns, you're going to need to use two lane roads for a good distance anyway. Ithaca is a good example. This is why it's a wish of mine to see more of NY-13 between Elmira and Cortland upgraded to freeway status, or at least limited-access expressway, wherever possible. The same is true for NY-96 between Ithaca and I-90. I think Ithaca, being one of the largest cities in NY without an interstate, deserves better access to the rest of the system. It could even lead to a rejuvenation of the area economically, and allow more to enjoy its natural beauty.
Taking I-87 to I-90 between NYC and Rochester?
Stopping in Ithaca while using I-87 and I-90?
What is this nonsense?
Yes, rural parts of the Thruway that are geographically north of Albany, not actually in a straight line continuing north from Albany. The Hudson Valley part of the Thruway is more scenic and less boring to drive on. And I said stopping in Ithaca if you're not using 87 and 90.
Also, excuse *ME* for daring to diverge from the topic a teeny bit and focusing on sprjus4's apparent claim that trips between NYC and Rochester should remain an all-interstate routing.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 17, 2023, 12:45:21 PMQuote from: Rothman on February 17, 2023, 07:00:53 AMQuote from: interstatefan990 on February 17, 2023, 02:09:46 AMThe Thruway north of Albany?
Coming from someone who's made the drive from the NYC area to Rochester and back a good number of times, this isn't the worst thing. The Thruway north of Albany in its most rural sections is pretty drab to drive through, so any surface road detour sounds nice.
Taking I-87 to I-90 between NYC and Rochester?
Stopping in Ithaca while using I-87 and I-90?
What is this nonsense?
Yes, rural parts of the Thruway that are geographically north of Albany, not actually in a straight line continuing north from Albany. The Hudson Valley part of the Thruway is more scenic and less boring to drive on. And I said stopping in Ithaca if you're not using 87 and 90.
Also, excuse *ME* for daring to diverge from the topic a teeny bit and focusing on sprjus4's apparent claim that trips between NYC and Rochester should remain an all-interstate routing.
Quote from: froggie on February 17, 2023, 01:52:36 PMMaybe the purpose was to exclude part of Buffalo-Erie stretch from generalization?Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 17, 2023, 12:45:21 PMQuote from: Rothman on February 17, 2023, 07:00:53 AMQuote from: interstatefan990 on February 17, 2023, 02:09:46 AMThe Thruway north of Albany?
Coming from someone who's made the drive from the NYC area to Rochester and back a good number of times, this isn't the worst thing. The Thruway north of Albany in its most rural sections is pretty drab to drive through, so any surface road detour sounds nice.
Taking I-87 to I-90 between NYC and Rochester?
Stopping in Ithaca while using I-87 and I-90?
What is this nonsense?
Yes, rural parts of the Thruway that are geographically north of Albany, not actually in a straight line continuing north from Albany. The Hudson Valley part of the Thruway is more scenic and less boring to drive on. And I said stopping in Ithaca if you're not using 87 and 90.
Also, excuse *ME* for daring to diverge from the topic a teeny bit and focusing on sprjus4's apparent claim that trips between NYC and Rochester should remain an all-interstate routing.
Most normal people would say the Thruway west of Albany, not north...
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2023, 01:31:30 PM
Certainly a unique perspective, especially given other discussions on the forum regarding scenery along the Thruway.
Quote from: froggie on February 17, 2023, 01:52:36 PM
Most normal people would say the Thruway west of Albany, not north...
Quote from: kalvado on February 17, 2023, 02:05:49 PM
Maybe the purpose was to exclude part of Buffalo-Erie stretch from generalization?
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 17, 2023, 02:31:05 PMThe Berkshire Connector says hiQuote from: Rothman on February 17, 2023, 01:31:30 PM
Certainly a unique perspective, especially given other discussions on the forum regarding scenery along the Thruway.
You're telling me this (https://goo.gl/maps/C5j5EvfFFDJsZF4T7) is scenic?Quote from: froggie on February 17, 2023, 01:52:36 PM
Most normal people would say the Thruway west of Albany, not north...
There's no Thruway east of Albany, so that's not a much better alternative. "The Thruway past Albany" is what I think you're trying to say.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 17, 2023, 02:35:57 PMQuote from: interstatefan990 on February 17, 2023, 02:31:05 PMThe Berkshire Connector says hiQuote from: Rothman on February 17, 2023, 01:31:30 PM
Certainly a unique perspective, especially given other discussions on the forum regarding scenery along the Thruway.
You're telling me this (https://goo.gl/maps/C5j5EvfFFDJsZF4T7) is scenic?Quote from: froggie on February 17, 2023, 01:52:36 PM
Most normal people would say the Thruway west of Albany, not north...
There's no Thruway east of Albany, so that's not a much better alternative. "The Thruway past Albany" is what I think you're trying to say.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 17, 2023, 02:31:05 PMQuote from: froggie on February 17, 2023, 01:52:36 PM
Most normal people would say the Thruway west of Albany, not north...
There's no Thruway east of Albany, so that's not a much better alternative. "The Thruway past Albany" is what I think you're trying to say.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 17, 2023, 02:31:05 PMThere certainly is Thruway east of Albany. It is called "Berkshire spur"Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2023, 01:31:30 PM
Certainly a unique perspective, especially given other discussions on the forum regarding scenery along the Thruway.
You're telling me this (https://goo.gl/maps/C5j5EvfFFDJsZF4T7) is scenic?Quote from: froggie on February 17, 2023, 01:52:36 PM
Most normal people would say the Thruway west of Albany, not north...
There's no Thruway east of Albany, so that's not a much better alternative. "The Thruway past Albany" is what I think you're trying to say.Quote from: kalvado on February 17, 2023, 02:05:49 PM
Maybe the purpose was to exclude part of Buffalo-Erie stretch from generalization?
Correct. I've never driven that stretch (but am planning to this summer), so I can't really speak to the scenery of that portion anyway.
Quote from: kalvado on February 17, 2023, 04:53:37 PM
There certainly is Thruway east of Albany. It is called "Berkshire spur"
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2023, 05:47:35 PMWell soon there won't be an I-81 in Syracuse anymore.
Heck with this silly conversation. Need to get back to I-81.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 17, 2023, 05:59:28 PMThere will be two versions of I-81. A former 481, and never dying Viaduct. Following Albany tradition one of them can be Alternative 81Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2023, 05:47:35 PMWell soon there won't be an I-81 in Syracuse anymore.
Heck with this silly conversation. Need to get back to I-81.
Quote from: kalvado on February 17, 2023, 07:13:34 PMSurely, old I-481 will be worked on first before the viaduct goes down, right? Then BL 81 through the community grid!Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 17, 2023, 05:59:28 PMThere will be two versions of I-81. A former 481, and never dying Viaduct. Following Albany tradition one of them can be Alternative 81Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2023, 05:47:35 PMWell soon there won't be an I-81 in Syracuse anymore.
Heck with this silly conversation. Need to get back to I-81.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 20, 2023, 03:39:17 AMIt is equally impossible to answer basic questions all the time.
Not everyone has time to read over 1000 posts. I think Henry has a legitimate question.
Remember not all users are not on the Spectrum with time all day to read every thread and post. Some have jobs, chores, TV recreation etc. and only are on here for a moment.
Quote from: froggie on February 22, 2023, 07:42:21 AMThe FEIS noted something about it costing more. Given that FHWA doesn't like partial interchange, I presume that the removal of building the missing ramps between I-81 and I-690 from the community grid proposal is the reason why. I also wouldn't be surprised if it was hoped that the business loop would help appease DestiNY USA and the hotels in Salina.
What was their rationale behind not leaving north of 690 as a 3di? As I recall, that was the original intention.
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 06, 2023, 09:47:06 AMYeah, the original ruling was strange and this kind of "this part is okay, but this isn't" approach was unexpected. The precedent that when you're off and running months after ROD and then have to go back to design is a pretty big stretch. People have been thinking of places like Las Vegas, where change is constant -- nothing would ever get done by this standard. From what I've heard, people are optimistic about the appeal, but with a ruling like this, who knows what'll happen now if the appeals court follows with this kind of crazy.
Just found an article that a New York judge has blocked the removal of I-81 through downtown Syracuse, which is now being appealed by the State of New York and the City of Syracuse.
https://www.syracuse.com/news/2023/03/state-transportation-department-will-appeal-recent-court-ruling-on-i-81.html
Quote from: machias on February 21, 2023, 09:43:18 PM
I know this is set in stone but the "BL 81" designation really bugs the hell out of me. If you don't want "81" going through downtown, you don't get "81" , whether it's a green Interstate shield or a traditional Interstate marker. It should either go back to US 11 between the I-81/I-481 junctions or it should become two odd numbered 3di routes. The whole "BL 81" label doesn't match anything else in New York State and could be misleading for the traveling public who's going to end up on a boulevard in the middle of the city. This is a whole "have your cake and eat it too" situation for the viaduct cheerleaders and honestly it's deceiving.
Quote from: 7/8 on March 06, 2023, 11:51:31 AMQuote from: machias on February 21, 2023, 09:43:18 PM
I know this is set in stone but the "BL 81" designation really bugs the hell out of me. If you don't want "81" going through downtown, you don't get "81" , whether it's a green Interstate shield or a traditional Interstate marker. It should either go back to US 11 between the I-81/I-481 junctions or it should become two odd numbered 3di routes. The whole "BL 81" label doesn't match anything else in New York State and could be misleading for the traveling public who's going to end up on a boulevard in the middle of the city. This is a whole "have your cake and eat it too" situation for the viaduct cheerleaders and honestly it's deceiving.
I feel like this makes sense as a business loop. It connects to I-81 on both ends and provides access to businesses (restaurants, gas stations, etc.). Business loops are normally surface streets, so it doesn't seem deceiving to me.
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2023, 11:36:04 AMCynical, but along the lines "it would collapse first": build up 481 and let elevated part deteriorate. Then close it as unsafe...Quote from: abqtraveler on March 06, 2023, 09:47:06 AMYeah, the original ruling was strange and this kind of "this part is okay, but this isn't" approach was unexpected. The precedent that when you're off and running months after ROD and then have to go back to design is a pretty big stretch. People have been thinking of places like Las Vegas, where change is constant -- nothing would ever get done by this standard. From what I've heard, people are optimistic about the appeal, but with a ruling like this, who knows what'll happen now if the appeals court follows with this kind of crazy.
Just found an article that a New York judge has blocked the removal of I-81 through downtown Syracuse, which is now being appealed by the State of New York and the City of Syracuse.
https://www.syracuse.com/news/2023/03/state-transportation-department-will-appeal-recent-court-ruling-on-i-81.html
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2023, 12:16:05 PMQuote from: 7/8 on March 06, 2023, 11:51:31 AMPart of the problem is that "business loop" is something totally uncommon for northeast. As far as I can tell, there are none in NY, 2 in PA, one in NH, and maybe 2 in CT. It makes too little sense for most locals.Quote from: machias on February 21, 2023, 09:43:18 PM
I know this is set in stone but the "BL 81" designation really bugs the hell out of me. If you don't want "81" going through downtown, you don't get "81" , whether it's a green Interstate shield or a traditional Interstate marker. It should either go back to US 11 between the I-81/I-481 junctions or it should become two odd numbered 3di routes. The whole "BL 81" label doesn't match anything else in New York State and could be misleading for the traveling public who's going to end up on a boulevard in the middle of the city. This is a whole "have your cake and eat it too" situation for the viaduct cheerleaders and honestly it's deceiving.
I feel like this makes sense as a business loop. It connects to I-81 on both ends and provides access to businesses (restaurants, gas stations, etc.). Business loops are normally surface streets, so it doesn't seem deceiving to me.
Quote from: webny99 on March 06, 2023, 11:56:30 AMQuote from: 7/8 on March 06, 2023, 11:51:31 AMQuote from: machias on February 21, 2023, 09:43:18 PM
I know this is set in stone but the "BL 81" designation really bugs the hell out of me. If you don't want "81" going through downtown, you don't get "81" , whether it's a green Interstate shield or a traditional Interstate marker. It should either go back to US 11 between the I-81/I-481 junctions or it should become two odd numbered 3di routes. The whole "BL 81" label doesn't match anything else in New York State and could be misleading for the traveling public who's going to end up on a boulevard in the middle of the city. This is a whole "have your cake and eat it too" situation for the viaduct cheerleaders and honestly it's deceiving.
I feel like this makes sense as a business loop. It connects to I-81 on both ends and provides access to businesses (restaurants, gas stations, etc.). Business loops are normally surface streets, so it doesn't seem deceiving to me.
Only a small portion of it would actually be a surface street, though. There will be minimal changes to the8 mile stretch between downtown Syracuse~6 miles between DestinyUSA and the northern I-481 junction, which will still function just as it does now, but with (presumably) a bit less through traffic.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 04, 2023, 11:11:43 AM
Article on I-81 controversy in today's NY Times (may be paywalled).
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwikut6N86n_AhVljokEHbkXDI0QFnoECDwQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2Fnyregion%2Fsyracuse-interstate-81.html&usg=AOvVaw186VA62IQz_lNL_8WGPBbx
Quote from: Rothman on June 04, 2023, 11:55:48 AMSO much for NYT proclaimed fact-checking of their writeups.Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 04, 2023, 11:11:43 AM
Article on I-81 controversy in today's NY Times (may be paywalled).
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwikut6N86n_AhVljokEHbkXDI0QFnoECDwQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2023%2F06%2F03%2Fnyregion%2Fsyracuse-interstate-81.html&usg=AOvVaw186VA62IQz_lNL_8WGPBbx
Heh. It's a State project, not a City of Syracuse project. The fact they focused on Joe Driscoll and considered him the project director is probably creating a lot of snickers at NYSDOT. "Yeah, we'll let them think that and take a break from the press..."
Then again, the City isn't being sued since it's not their project, so more power to Joe for participating in the article.
Quote from: vdeane on June 04, 2023, 03:18:36 PMCommon propagandist approaches - present significantly different things as similar when needed, focus on minor differences otherwise. Ol'good ends justifies the means thing.
I think it's annoying when people compare apples and oranges with freeway removal projects. Syracuse is a true freeway removal of a major interstate. Rochester removed a lightly traveled route that was close to I-490, so access didn't really change at all (especially since the only way to get to it from the east side was to drive around the other side or use local streets anyways). Denver and Boston buried their interstates rather than remove them. Yet the article (and many urban activists, as well) treats them as if they're all the same.
Quote from: vdeane on June 04, 2023, 03:18:36 PM
I think it's annoying when people compare apples and oranges with freeway removal projects. Syracuse is a true freeway removal of a major interstate. Rochester removed a lightly traveled route that was close to I-490, so access didn't really change at all (especially since the only way to get to it from the east side was to drive around the other side or use local streets anyways). Denver and Boston buried their interstates rather than remove them. Yet the article (and many urban activists, as well) treats them as if they're all the same.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 18, 2023, 04:12:55 PM
There is a recent story on the Interstate 81 reconstruction plan at the sycacuse.com website: https://www.syracuse.com/news/2023/07/new-york-starts-225-billion-interstate-81-rebuild-despite-court-challenges.html. However, the text in the second paragraph disappears into a paywall. Can someone help me out to see all the words to the story? I'd really appreciate it since I am the one who started this thread in the first place (I have a great deal of interest in this project, even though I've never been to Syracuse or the state of New York).
Quote from: zzcarp on July 18, 2023, 05:47:14 PMThe text of the article is not as charged as the headline.Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 18, 2023, 04:12:55 PM
There is a recent story on the Interstate 81 reconstruction plan at the sycacuse.com website: https://www.syracuse.com/news/2023/07/new-york-starts-225-billion-interstate-81-rebuild-despite-court-challenges.html. However, the text in the second paragraph disappears into a paywall. Can someone help me out to see all the words to the story? I'd really appreciate it since I am the one who started this thread in the first place (I have a great deal of interest in this project, even though I've never been to Syracuse or the state of New York).
Try this link (https://archive.ph/ezMF8).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 18, 2023, 04:12:55 PMI have a great deal of interest in this project, even though I've never been to Syracuse or the state of New York.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 19, 2023, 08:05:59 AMWork on 481 have started despite ongoing legal situation. Not too much fanfare at this point, maybe ceremony when the viaduct is closed for demolition.
link didn't work for me, what was the jist of the article?
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 19, 2023, 08:05:59 AMJust that NYSDOT is moving forward with the aspects of the project not affected by the lawsuits -- which means any of those activities that are not directly related to the removal of the viaduct. This includes mainly the northern interchange between I-81/I-481/NY 481 at this point. Article states that NYSDOT has not had a groundbreaking or fanfare regarding the construction work that is underway and that $29m has been spent on the project already.
link didn't work for me, what was the jist of the article?
Quote from: Alps on July 19, 2023, 09:09:23 PMWelcome to New York, home of Syracuse, Ithaca, Troy, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Poland.
I don't get the fuss. Syracuse has no freeways in its limits at all. It does have this cool truss though: https://goo.gl/maps/RHohfoBNZNJjcKSj8
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 19, 2023, 08:05:59 AM
link didn't work for me, what was the jist of the article?
QuoteThe state said the inability to work on contract procurement, design or construction of the viaduct would put the entire project schedule at risk of costing tens of millions of dollars.
In court papers, Jeffrey Moryl, director of the DOT's project management office, laid out the inconvenience to the department and cost to taxpayers.
First, he said, the state would forfeit the $29 million it has already paid for work on the first contract. That includes preparing the area for construction by removing noise barriers, removing existing utilities, establishing work zone traffic controls and building staging areas.
The state would also have to pay for millions of dollars in infrastructure that has been ordered, but not yet paid for. These costs total $24.3 million and include 1,700 precast retaining wall units, steel for five bridges, materials for two large culverts and one precast bridge, and a custom GPS system for construction.
There would also be a cost of $50,000 to $100,000 per month to extend quality assurance and inspection contracts, he said.
Delaying the project also affects the workforce. The contractors have already hired 49 construction workers from the Syracuse area, he said.
It would also be harmful to the people who live near the northern exchange where work has begun because they have already removed noise barriers, he said.
...
Betsy Parmley, the engineer in charge of the project, said she cannot discuss the lawsuit.
She did talk about the work that has begun at the northern interchange.
Preliminary site work is already visible to commuters and neighbors. In late July, drivers will start to see heavier construction, she said.
The plan is to redesign the interchange so drivers can connect from I-81 to I-481 at 65 mph rather than the slow off ramps that exist now, she said.
...
The DOT does plan to host an official groundbreaking at some point, most likely when it is time to tear down the viaduct in Syracuse, she said.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 20, 2023, 01:58:45 PMWell, it certainly was the joke...
Wrong Syracuse, Alps! That one is in Sicily. Or was that the point?
Quote from: Rothman on July 21, 2023, 01:13:30 PM
Got invited to and attended the I-81 Viaduct Project groundbreaking today. Gov. Hochul, Sens. Schumer and Gillibrand, Lanessa Owens-Chaplin of NY Civil Liberties Union and Former Mayor of New Orleans Mitch Landrieu, White House Coordinator of the IIJA all spoke. Pretty standard stuff on reconnecting the community, fighting racism, and creating local, unionized jobs.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 22, 2023, 01:01:32 AMWhy?Quote from: Rothman on July 21, 2023, 01:13:30 PM
Got invited to and attended the I-81 Viaduct Project groundbreaking today. Gov. Hochul, Sens. Schumer and Gillibrand, Lanessa Owens-Chaplin of NY Civil Liberties Union and Former Mayor of New Orleans Mitch Landrieu, White House Coordinator of the IIJA all spoke. Pretty standard stuff on reconnecting the community, fighting racism, and creating local, unionized jobs.
Sorry you had to sit through that.
Quote from: Rothman on July 22, 2023, 10:14:22 AMIMO it'd be because this project is fucking stupid.Quote from: Duke87 on July 22, 2023, 01:01:32 AMWhy?Quote from: Rothman on July 21, 2023, 01:13:30 PM
Got invited to and attended the I-81 Viaduct Project groundbreaking today. Gov. Hochul, Sens. Schumer and Gillibrand, Lanessa Owens-Chaplin of NY Civil Liberties Union and Former Mayor of New Orleans Mitch Landrieu, White House Coordinator of the IIJA all spoke. Pretty standard stuff on reconnecting the community, fighting racism, and creating local, unionized jobs.
Sorry you had to sit through that.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 24, 2023, 08:52:38 PMQuote from: Rothman on July 22, 2023, 10:14:22 AMIMO it'd be because this project is fucking stupid.Quote from: Duke87 on July 22, 2023, 01:01:32 AMWhy?Quote from: Rothman on July 21, 2023, 01:13:30 PM
Got invited to and attended the I-81 Viaduct Project groundbreaking today. Gov. Hochul, Sens. Schumer and Gillibrand, Lanessa Owens-Chaplin of NY Civil Liberties Union and Former Mayor of New Orleans Mitch Landrieu, White House Coordinator of the IIJA all spoke. Pretty standard stuff on reconnecting the community, fighting racism, and creating local, unionized jobs.
Sorry you had to sit through that.
Quote from: Rothman on July 25, 2023, 12:14:52 AMAnd again, I'm still amazed that Alabama can build such a much more massive road elevated through their downtown and one of their biggest cities yet New York can't even build an at grade Boulevard replacing the freeway for less. So if we're already spending this amount of money, we might as well go big, or go home, and either rebuild a thing as it is, or at least build it to where the portals can be constructed in the future, when, and if Syracuse ever starts becoming a bigger city.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 24, 2023, 08:52:38 PMQuote from: Rothman on July 22, 2023, 10:14:22 AMIMO it'd be because this project is fucking stupid.Quote from: Duke87 on July 22, 2023, 01:01:32 AMWhy?Quote from: Rothman on July 21, 2023, 01:13:30 PM
Got invited to and attended the I-81 Viaduct Project groundbreaking today. Gov. Hochul, Sens. Schumer and Gillibrand, Lanessa Owens-Chaplin of NY Civil Liberties Union and Former Mayor of New Orleans Mitch Landrieu, White House Coordinator of the IIJA all spoke. Pretty standard stuff on reconnecting the community, fighting racism, and creating local, unionized jobs.
Sorry you had to sit through that.
I'm still shaking my head at or mildly amused by roadgeeks that repeat criticisms that blatantly don't take all the characteristics of the project into account, which means they can be ignored.
I'm also amused by the fact that there have been so few roadgeeks that have actually looked into the details of the project and noted the actual remaining more troublesome aspects of it.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 25, 2023, 01:36:31 AMQuote from: Rothman on July 25, 2023, 12:14:52 AMAnd again, I'm still amazed that Alabama can build such a much more massive road elevated through their downtown and one of their biggest cities yet New York can't even build an at grade Boulevard replacing the freeway for less. So if we're already spending this amount of money, we might as well go big, or go home, and either rebuild a thing as it is, or at least build it to where the portals can be constructed in the future, when, and if Syracuse ever starts becoming a bigger city.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 24, 2023, 08:52:38 PMQuote from: Rothman on July 22, 2023, 10:14:22 AMIMO it'd be because this project is fucking stupid.Quote from: Duke87 on July 22, 2023, 01:01:32 AMWhy?Quote from: Rothman on July 21, 2023, 01:13:30 PM
Got invited to and attended the I-81 Viaduct Project groundbreaking today. Gov. Hochul, Sens. Schumer and Gillibrand, Lanessa Owens-Chaplin of NY Civil Liberties Union and Former Mayor of New Orleans Mitch Landrieu, White House Coordinator of the IIJA all spoke. Pretty standard stuff on reconnecting the community, fighting racism, and creating local, unionized jobs.
Sorry you had to sit through that.
I'm still shaking my head at or mildly amused by roadgeeks that repeat criticisms that blatantly don't take all the characteristics of the project into account, which means they can be ignored.
I'm also amused by the fact that there have been so few roadgeeks that have actually looked into the details of the project and noted the actual remaining more troublesome aspects of it.
Quote from: Rothman on July 25, 2023, 07:02:36 AMI get it you're just obsessed with this project and responding to any and everyone telling them why they're wrong when they criticize it. It's beyond ridiculous at this point.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 25, 2023, 01:36:31 AMQuote from: Rothman on July 25, 2023, 12:14:52 AMAnd again, I'm still amazed that Alabama can build such a much more massive road elevated through their downtown and one of their biggest cities yet New York can't even build an at grade Boulevard replacing the freeway for less. So if we're already spending this amount of money, we might as well go big, or go home, and either rebuild a thing as it is, or at least build it to where the portals can be constructed in the future, when, and if Syracuse ever starts becoming a bigger city.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 24, 2023, 08:52:38 PMQuote from: Rothman on July 22, 2023, 10:14:22 AMIMO it'd be because this project is fucking stupid.Quote from: Duke87 on July 22, 2023, 01:01:32 AMWhy?Quote from: Rothman on July 21, 2023, 01:13:30 PM
Got invited to and attended the I-81 Viaduct Project groundbreaking today. Gov. Hochul, Sens. Schumer and Gillibrand, Lanessa Owens-Chaplin of NY Civil Liberties Union and Former Mayor of New Orleans Mitch Landrieu, White House Coordinator of the IIJA all spoke. Pretty standard stuff on reconnecting the community, fighting racism, and creating local, unionized jobs.
Sorry you had to sit through that.
I'm still shaking my head at or mildly amused by roadgeeks that repeat criticisms that blatantly don't take all the characteristics of the project into account, which means they can be ignored.
I'm also amused by the fact that there have been so few roadgeeks that have actually looked into the details of the project and noted the actual remaining more troublesome aspects of it.
And, to that, I only have to refer you to the post you quoted therein. If you can't see the difference between the two projects, you haven't educated yourself properly, especially at this point, where the reasons behind why the replacement was so expensive has been explained by NYSDOT and on this forum ad nauseam.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 25, 2023, 10:07:28 AMNot to defend Rothman (not that he needs that anyway) - but you may have noticed that the local gang who knows the area came to some sort of agreement. It's a small portion of traffic which would really suffer; and I-81 reroute is the least of all evils given the overall situation. It wouldn't help depressed area, but I don't see anything that really would.Quote from: Rothman on July 25, 2023, 07:02:36 AMI get it you're just obsessed with this project and responding to any and everyone telling them why they're wrong when they criticize it. It's beyond ridiculous at this point.
Quote from: machias on July 25, 2023, 11:13:45 AMThat's more like it.
The only thing I find concerning about this project is the decision to go with BL 81 instead of a couple of 3-digit interstate numbers (one each into downtown from the current 481 interchanges). Both interchanges will have "Route 81" intersecting with "Route 81" which motorists may find confusing. That area of New York State tends to call everything "Route".
There's also a bunch of poor sign designs on the plans I've seen but I'm really hopeful I didn't see the version of the plans that are actually going to be used to fabricate the signs. (One example, a post interchange sign with I-90/Thruway the destination and a mileage of "5.5")
Quote from: kalvado on July 25, 2023, 11:08:28 AMI try to tend and think long term. But nowadays you got people who are certain Syracuse won't ever grow or that it's a waste of land space preserving ROW for future infrastructure needed for tunnels even though that space can temporarily be activated in other areas until the time calls.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 25, 2023, 10:07:28 AMNot to defend Rothman (not that he needs that anyway) - but you may have noticed that the local gang who knows the area came to some sort of agreement. It's a small portion of traffic which would really suffer; and I-81 reroute is the least of all evils given the overall situation. It wouldn't help depressed area, but I don't see anything that really would.Quote from: Rothman on July 25, 2023, 07:02:36 AMI get it you're just obsessed with this project and responding to any and everyone telling them why they're wrong when they criticize it. It's beyond ridiculous at this point.
People living in a very different environment far away from project area are certainly allowed to have their own perspective - but looks like some are missing on the realities in the project and area specifics.
Quote from: machias on July 25, 2023, 11:17:27 AMThe traffic movement from the south to the west and vice versa is definitely still a concern. So far, the official response is, "Going around will take just a few more minutes, especially when I-690 is brought up to standard as part of this project." Not the greatest consolation, but the pro of reconnecting the Hill with Downtown is supposed to outweigh the con.
It'd also be nice to see the freeway from current I-81 Exit 16A northwest to the NY 5 freeway stub at Genesee Street on future plans somewhere, but we all know that's never going to happen. (I clearly remember discussions about that in the 80s). That would definitely help with traffic concerns for traffic on that side of the city.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 25, 2023, 11:23:03 AMI assume once you say "tunnel", you may safely remove your name from the list of rational people anyway.Quote from: kalvado on July 25, 2023, 11:08:28 AMI try to tend and think long term. But nowadays you got people who are certain Syracuse won't ever grow or that it's a waste of land space preserving ROW for future infrastructure needed for tunnels even though that space can temporarily be activated in other areas until the time calls.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 25, 2023, 10:07:28 AMNot to defend Rothman (not that he needs that anyway) - but you may have noticed that the local gang who knows the area came to some sort of agreement. It's a small portion of traffic which would really suffer; and I-81 reroute is the least of all evils given the overall situation. It wouldn't help depressed area, but I don't see anything that really would.Quote from: Rothman on July 25, 2023, 07:02:36 AMI get it you're just obsessed with this project and responding to any and everyone telling them why they're wrong when they criticize it. It's beyond ridiculous at this point.
People living in a very different environment far away from project area are certainly allowed to have their own perspective - but looks like some are missing on the realities in the project and area specifics.
There's also something to be said that we can't learn lessons from Alabama and just have to completely alienate them as there is no way New York could ever find a way to reduce infrastructure costs and I must be claiming that they could do it here for the same cost as down south just because I mentioned them as a case study. It's a my way or the highway type shit. Rothman is just completely obsessed with responding to EVERY damned comment that mentions this project in a way he doesn't like as if he has personal investment in it himself.
It's kinda funny but annoying at the same time. That isn't a rational person when it comes to this particular subject.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 25, 2023, 11:23:03 AMQuote from: kalvado on July 25, 2023, 11:08:28 AMI try to tend and think long term. But nowadays you got people who are certain Syracuse won't ever grow or that it's a waste of land space preserving ROW for future infrastructure needed for tunnels even though that space can temporarily be activated in other areas until the time calls.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 25, 2023, 10:07:28 AMNot to defend Rothman (not that he needs that anyway) - but you may have noticed that the local gang who knows the area came to some sort of agreement. It's a small portion of traffic which would really suffer; and I-81 reroute is the least of all evils given the overall situation. It wouldn't help depressed area, but I don't see anything that really would.Quote from: Rothman on July 25, 2023, 07:02:36 AMI get it you're just obsessed with this project and responding to any and everyone telling them why they're wrong when they criticize it. It's beyond ridiculous at this point.
People living in a very different environment far away from project area are certainly allowed to have their own perspective - but looks like some are missing on the realities in the project and area specifics.
There's also something to be said that we can't learn lessons from Alabama and just have to completely alienate them as there is no way New York could ever find a way to reduce infrastructure costs and I must be claiming that they could do it here for the same cost as down south just because I mentioned them as a case study. It's a my way or the highway type shit. Rothman is just completely obsessed with responding to EVERY damned comment that mentions this project in a way he doesn't like as if he has personal investment in it himself.
It's kinda funny but annoying at the same time. That isn't a rational person when it comes to this particular subject.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 25, 2023, 12:11:23 PMPoiponen13 approves this message.
Long-term planning is not absurd.
Quote from: machias on July 25, 2023, 11:13:45 AMThat's my issue as well. I don't think the southern freeway needs an interstate number, but it would have been nice to have the northern freeway an interstate with the rest a state route, in typical NY fashion. However, I understand that doing so would have cost more (likely because of the I-690 interchange; FHWA frowns on incomplete interstate/interstate junctions these days) per the FEIS. That said, there's still no reason it couldn't all be "NYS Route 681" or something.
The only thing I find concerning about this project is the decision to go with BL 81 instead of a couple of 3-digit interstate numbers (one each into downtown from the current 481 interchanges). Both interchanges will have "Route 81" intersecting with "Route 81" which motorists may find confusing. That area of New York State tends to call everything "Route".
There's also a bunch of poor sign designs on the plans I've seen but I'm really hopeful I didn't see the version of the plans that are actually going to be used to fabricate the signs. (One example, a post interchange sign with I-90/Thruway the destination and a mileage of "5.5")
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 25, 2023, 01:05:44 PMEverything within project limits is going mile-based according to the RFP plans for Contracts 1 and 2. Of course, these signing plans are littered with mistakes, so who knows what will actually happen.
I know that when Interstate 81 is rerouted onto Interstate 481's corridor, both Interstate 81's and Interstate (and hopefully NY) 690's exit will be renumbered to mileage-based. I have not heard what will become of future Business 81's and NY 481's exit numbers. I would imagine they also be renumbered to mileage-based, since I don't think either Business 81's or NY 481's exit numbers should either be de-numbered or left with their existing numbers.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 25, 2023, 02:37:17 PM
throw US 11 onto the stubs. problem solved.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 25, 2023, 01:05:44 PM
I know that when Interstate 81 is rerouted onto Interstate 481's corridor, both Interstate 81's and Interstate (and hopefully NY) 690's exit will be renumbered to mileage-based. I have not heard what will become of future Business 81's and NY 481's exit numbers. I would imagine they also be renumbered to mileage-based, since I don't think either Business 81's or NY 481's exit numbers should either be de-numbered or left with their existing numbers.
Quote from: vdeane on July 25, 2023, 12:57:36 PMQuote from: machias on July 25, 2023, 11:13:45 AMThat's my issue as well. I don't think the southern freeway needs an interstate number, but it would have been nice to have the northern freeway an interstate with the rest a state route, in typical NY fashion. However, I understand that doing so would have cost more (likely because of the I-690 interchange; FHWA frowns on incomplete interstate/interstate junctions these days) per the FEIS. That said, there's still no reason it couldn't all be "NYS Route 681" or something.
The only thing I find concerning about this project is the decision to go with BL 81 instead of a couple of 3-digit interstate numbers (one each into downtown from the current 481 interchanges). Both interchanges will have "Route 81" intersecting with "Route 81" which motorists may find confusing. That area of New York State tends to call everything "Route".
There's also a bunch of poor sign designs on the plans I've seen but I'm really hopeful I didn't see the version of the plans that are actually going to be used to fabricate the signs. (One example, a post interchange sign with I-90/Thruway the destination and a mileage of "5.5")
(personal opinion)
Quote from: Rothman on July 25, 2023, 11:27:55 AMQuote from: machias on July 25, 2023, 11:17:27 AMThe traffic movement from the south to the west and vice versa is definitely still a concern. So far, the official response is, "Going around will take just a few more minutes, especially when I-690 is brought up to standard as part of this project." Not the greatest consolation, but the pro of reconnecting the Hill with Downtown is supposed to outweigh the con.
It'd also be nice to see the freeway from current I-81 Exit 16A northwest to the NY 5 freeway stub at Genesee Street on future plans somewhere, but we all know that's never going to happen. (I clearly remember discussions about that in the 80s). That would definitely help with traffic concerns for traffic on that side of the city.
That said, any proposal for I-481 to become like SLC's I-215 is a nonstarter due to the terrain, development and entrenched NIMBYs that like the suburban/rural feel of the area. I have an old map in my office that shows that even in the ancient times of just plowing highways through anywhere, the NY 5 freeway was proposed to end at the Zoo.
Sharing photos is such a pain on here, but I'll see if I can upload one of the map.
Quote from: vdeane on July 25, 2023, 08:47:50 PM
Incidentally I took another look at the signage for contracts 1 and 2 and found a few interesting anomalies. SB "former exit 16A" should be "former exit 1". SB "87 A-B" should just be 87, since the ramp won't split. There's also a BL 81 mile 90 marker included for some reason...
I see it keeps Thruway exit 36 as Watertown/Binghamton, but it also notes "existing panel to remain". Perhaps temporary until the Thruway can do a proper replacement? Interestingly, nothing appears for 34A at all.
Quote from: machias on July 25, 2023, 11:55:24 PMYou'd be surprised. State's been rushing to get the contracts out to construction.Quote from: vdeane on July 25, 2023, 08:47:50 PM
Incidentally I took another look at the signage for contracts 1 and 2 and found a few interesting anomalies. SB "former exit 16A" should be "former exit 1". SB "87 A-B" should just be 87, since the ramp won't split. There's also a BL 81 mile 90 marker included for some reason...
I see it keeps Thruway exit 36 as Watertown/Binghamton, but it also notes "existing panel to remain". Perhaps temporary until the Thruway can do a proper replacement? Interestingly, nothing appears for 34A at all.
I'm really hoping these plans are not the final plans because there's a lot of mistakes in there, including some panels with some bad layouts. I can't imagine these are the plans the contractors are working off of.
Quote from: Rothman on July 25, 2023, 10:27:10 PM
Here we go. Look closely for the thin, dashed black line. It actually goes all the way to West Street.
(image snipped)
Quote from: Flyer78 on July 26, 2023, 11:41:31 AMIt's a huge map and has a lot of fun old stuff on it, including a weird proposal for NY 298 to head out on a totally new alignment out to Chittenango Creek from I-481 to east of Bridgeport.Quote from: Rothman on July 25, 2023, 10:27:10 PM
Here we go. Look closely for the thin, dashed black line. It actually goes all the way to West Street.
(image snipped)
Very cool to see this! I grew up in the area, always wondered what the "next phase" of the bypass could look like, beyond the direct access to Wegmans and space for their employees to park.
Quote from: vdeane on August 07, 2023, 08:34:13 PMI was thinking the exact same thing! While it may become BL 81 in the future, it'll still remain a freeway. (Speaking of which, I would've made this portion I-181 and the southern part NY 181. Given that the latter designation hasn't been in use for 60 years, not only would it be a 3di extension, but give the route some continuity through the city.)
"Business Loop Entrance (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=42018&p_is_digital=Y)" (page 399) - wouldn't "freeway entrance" be appropriate given that the portion north of I-690 will be remaining a freeway?
Quote from: vdeane on August 07, 2023, 08:34:13 PM
"Business Loop Entrance (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=42018&p_is_digital=Y)" (page 399) - wouldn't "freeway entrance" be appropriate given that the portion north of I-690 will be remaining a freeway?
Quote from: cl94 on August 08, 2023, 12:27:14 AMI would totally agree with you if we were talking about a better area. But Syracuse..... There are two possibilities for locals - things will be either worse or much worse as a result of all this.
I'm still waiting for the land speculators to start buying up land near I-81 with hopes of making a fortune when land values increase. Because they will if it's as successful as is hoped.
Unlike a lot of the road community, my criticism of the project isn't with removing the freeway. It's that the entire neighborhood is gonna gentrify and force out the people the politicians claim it's going to help. That's right, my criticisms of this are from the left! There's a reason freeway removals only happen when developers are salivating over an area, and it's not because people feel sorry for the residents. It's because people see dollar signs and a chance to make a buck.
Nearly every time a major infrastructure project to improve "quality of life" occurs, property values increase if it is successful. Simple economics there, as property values are highly correlated with a location's desirability. Since most of the people who live nearby are renters and not property owners, they're the ones who suffer. People live where they can afford, and if rents in that neighborhood increase, the current residents will end up moving if their income remains the same. Supporters claim that this is solely an "infrastructure project", but not putting the social policies in place just means the developers are the ones doing the city's dirty work of removing the poor people and "cleaning up the neighborhood". But of course, NY will always be in the pockets of developers and large donors, and the right wheels got greased.
Now, NY could remove the freeway and put in policies to ensure current residents are actually able to stay and enjoy the benefits of no freeway next door. But that would mean less tax revenue for the state/city as well as poor people living next to SU, and we can't have that. [sarcasm emphasized in that last sentence]
There are a lot more snide comments I could take here that are critical of how NY is doing this from the policy side, but I think it would be best if I kept my mouth shut. I will say that I believe state-sponsored gentrification isn't much better than what we did in the 50s and 60s with urban freeways, because the people living next to the freeway are still the ones who suffer. There are ways to both remove the freeway and not screw over current residents, and those are the solutions I wish we pursued.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Edit: this might make some people in the hobby angry, but I'd actually support this project 100% (apart from the crappy sign plans) if the state/city did work on the social services end to ensure people negatively impacted by I-81 actually benefit. With how much Syracuse has shrunk, it could be a great domestic demonstration project for how a bundled approach of infrastructure and social policy can create positive change in a community. I currently live/work in a place which has seen rapid property value increases and I am quite familiar with what can happen if there aren't safeguards for current residents (indeed, part of my work involves trying to protect service workers and ensure they can live near work). My fears and concerns are entirely on the policy end, that the people we're claiming to help with the viaduct removal will end up being harmed through economic changes spurred by said removal.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 08, 2023, 08:33:12 PM
I agree completely, astralentity. However, like I have stated before in this thread, the community grid proposal is set in stone. It is only a matter of when, not if, the viaduct comes down. Opponents of the CG may stall the process, but the viaduct will ultimately come down, one way or another.
Quote from: astralentity on August 08, 2023, 10:35:14 PMCourt can't stop it. It can really only delay it.Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 08, 2023, 08:33:12 PM
I agree completely, astralentity. However, like I have stated before in this thread, the community grid proposal is set in stone. It is only a matter of when, not if, the viaduct comes down. Opponents of the CG may stall the process, but the viaduct will ultimately come down, one way or another.
Makes me wonder what would happen if the court did stop it.
Quote from: Rothman on August 09, 2023, 12:15:05 AMOne thing for sure - court cannot extend viaduct lifetime... and that seems to be running low.Quote from: astralentity on August 08, 2023, 10:35:14 PMCourt can't stop it. It can really only delay it.Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 08, 2023, 08:33:12 PM
I agree completely, astralentity. However, like I have stated before in this thread, the community grid proposal is set in stone. It is only a matter of when, not if, the viaduct comes down. Opponents of the CG may stall the process, but the viaduct will ultimately come down, one way or another.
Makes me wonder what would happen if the court did stop it.
Quote from: seicer on August 09, 2023, 12:58:42 PMIn other words it's business as usual in the USA, isn't it?
But let's keep delaying the inevitable, wasting more taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits, and pitching more infeasible and too-expensive alternatives like a tunnel or a sky-high viaduct.
Quote from: seicer on August 09, 2023, 12:58:42 PM
But let's keep delaying the inevitable, wasting more taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits, and pitching more infeasible and too-expensive alternatives like a tunnel or a sky-high viaduct.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 09, 2023, 07:14:52 PMPfft. We'll see how the appeal goes. The idea that the State did not follow due process is pretty unfounded, especially with FHWA's signoff every step of the way through the NEPA process.Quote from: seicer on August 09, 2023, 12:58:42 PM
But let's keep delaying the inevitable, wasting more taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits, and pitching more infeasible and too-expensive alternatives like a tunnel or a sky-high viaduct.
To be fair, the state did flagrantly violate the law by excluding suburban communities around Syracuse where opposition to removal exists from the process, at former governor Cuomo's orders in an attempt to ram the project through more quickly than it could have been if the proper process were followed. The state will get spanked for this in court.
But, ultimately, forcing the state to go back and follow the proper process won't change the clearly very predetermined outcome, at least so long as the governor's office is occupied by someone who wants the viaduct removal to move forward. The project's opponents are hail marying here, hoping that NY may have a different governor who doesn't want the viaduct removed by the time the wrecking balls are able to come for it (highly unlikely, of course, but that's why it's a hail mary).
Also gotta consider the bigger picture here: while opponents may not be able to stop this removal project, putting up as much resistance as possible can still make the state think twice about pursuing other future similar projects, if they know it's gonna be a hard fight making it happen.
Besides, keeping the viaduct around a couple extra years has functional value in and of itself, allows people to get more use out of it before it's taken away.
Quote from: seicer on August 10, 2023, 09:57:01 AMOther aspect of it is even preserving ROW requires a rough design to make sure preserved areas actually would work.
The DOT dismissed the tunnel alternative as being far too expensive to construct (especially considering the alternatives), and an independent study conducted at the request of Cuomo (https://cnycentral.com/news/local/tunnel-option-for-i-81-could-take-up-to-45-billion-decade-to-build-study-finds) came to the same conclusion. Does the state need to go into deep debt to build a $3 billion to $4 billion tunnel for low AADT? On top of the permanent closure of many city streets (which was agreed from the beginning was not going to be acceptable), excessive traffic congestion during construction, and technical challenges that would surely drive up project costs.
Quote from: seicer on August 10, 2023, 11:36:22 AM^So much this, which I think I pointed out earlier in this thread (or should have).
Well, for the tunnel alternative, that would require demolishing a large swath of land through the heart of Syracuse and then just letting it sit idle indefinitely for a tunnel that will never be built.
Quote from: seicer on August 10, 2023, 09:57:01 AMI'm not saying I support a tunnel alternative now or in the future, but I do think it's important to note he said preserve right of way for a future tunnel - not one today.
The DOT dismissed the tunnel alternative as being far too expensive to construct (especially considering the alternatives), and an independent study conducted at the request of Cuomo (https://cnycentral.com/news/local/tunnel-option-for-i-81-could-take-up-to-45-billion-decade-to-build-study-finds) came to the same conclusion. Does the state need to go into deep debt to build a $3 billion to $4 billion tunnel for low AADT? On top of the permanent closure of many city streets (which was agreed from the beginning was not going to be acceptable), excessive traffic congestion during construction, and technical challenges that would surely drive up project costs.
Quote from: Rothman on August 10, 2023, 11:43:35 AMSpending $2.25 billion on a community grid is the definition of governmental waste.
Given the development that has occurred right around the viaduct already, let alone all over Syracuse in recent years, the idea of purchasing ROW of massive tracts in downtown Syracuse for the tunnel portals when funding will never be found at this point is the definition of governmental waste.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 10, 2023, 11:47:02 AMQuote from: Rothman on August 10, 2023, 11:43:35 AMSpending $2.25 billion on a community grid is the definition of governmental waste.
Given the development that has occurred right around the viaduct already, let alone all over Syracuse in recent years, the idea of purchasing ROW of massive tracts in downtown Syracuse for the tunnel portals when funding will never be found at this point is the definition of governmental waste.
Quote from: vdeane on August 10, 2023, 12:54:05 PM... because just tearing down viaduct would indeed be catastrophic. Some don't like a new road system planned for Syracuse- but there are few things everyone would love (except, maybe, money and beer)
Keep in mind that $2.25 billion isn't just for tearing down the I-81 viaduct and doing work on the streets below it. The I-690 viaduct is being replaced. The two interchanges with I-481 are being redone. I-481 is being widened in spots, including both directions on some rather long bridges (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.066364,-76.0524135,3a,75y,12.55h,80.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqRg5ac8UZdPW00uFIm_F8g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DqRg5ac8UZdPW00uFIm_F8g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D87.54018%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu). The part that's remaining a freeway is getting a fair amount of work. This isn't just a viaduct tear-down - it's basically a revitalization of Syracuse's entire transportation system.
Quote from: Rothman on August 10, 2023, 11:43:35 AMQuote from: seicer on August 10, 2023, 11:36:22 AM^So much this, which I think I pointed out earlier in this thread (or should have).
Well, for the tunnel alternative, that would require demolishing a large swath of land through the heart of Syracuse and then just letting it sit idle indefinitely for a tunnel that will never be built.
Given the development that has occurred right around the viaduct already, let alone all over Syracuse in recent years, the idea of purchasing ROW of massive tracts in downtown Syracuse for the tunnel portals when funding will never be found at this point is the definition of governmental waste.
So, I, for one, do not understand certain individuals that continue to tilt at this windmill.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 10, 2023, 06:29:47 PMQuote from: Rothman on August 10, 2023, 11:43:35 AMQuote from: seicer on August 10, 2023, 11:36:22 AM^So much this, which I think I pointed out earlier in this thread (or should have).
Well, for the tunnel alternative, that would require demolishing a large swath of land through the heart of Syracuse and then just letting it sit idle indefinitely for a tunnel that will never be built.
Given the development that has occurred right around the viaduct already, let alone all over Syracuse in recent years, the idea of purchasing ROW of massive tracts in downtown Syracuse for the tunnel portals when funding will never be found at this point is the definition of governmental waste.
So, I, for one, do not understand certain individuals that continue to tilt at this windmill.
I mean...
1) some are of the opinion that a freeway through downtown must be retained at any cost, and any option that involves not having one should never have been considered
2) a tunnel would be the only feasible way of retaining a thru freeway without slaughtering any sacred cows
Combine 1 and 2 and you get harping about tunnels.
The problem, of course, is that this logic is at odds with the reality that this is New York we're talking about. Another state might actually be able to come up with the money for a tunnel (boondoggly as it may be). Another state might also not be shackled by sacred cow problems and would be capable of building a new viaduct up to modern standards at reasonable cost, even though use of eminent domain would be required. But New York is a failed state that is simultaneously broke and institutionally incapable of building anything if someone might have a fingernail broken in the process due to past trauma over planning malpractice (thanks Robert Moses).
They wrap the project up in dressing about "reconnecting communities" and other feelgood bullshit that it won't actually accomplish in the way they're acting like it will, but the reality is the state is capitulating to their own impotence and they refuse to admit it.
I'd respect this whole project a lot more if New York were honest and said "look, we're incapable of keeping I-81 through downtown, sorry, but hey at least some developers will profit from its removal". Because ultimately given all the constraints in play the option being pursued is the best and most realistic one... but the state is not explaining their motives in good faith and that, frankly, bothers me more than anything else about it.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 10, 2023, 06:55:04 PM
Usually developments are part of a city wide vitilalization project and from I witnessed here, it don't seem part of it. It just a conversion from freeway to arterial to remove a barrier, which is proven to be elevated or suppressed freeways in the modern world..
A major vitalization project is that like of Newport in Jersey City, NJ and there aren't such projects around I-81 that seems close to it. Newport was just the conversion of old railroads and warehouses to a modern office, retail, and residential facilities along a prime waterfront. In Syracuse it looks like they're strengthening a fallen community by bringing back whole neighborhoods.
Quote from: Rothman on August 10, 2023, 07:39:26 PMSmall scale development in Austin - we may get only 10000 jobs out of that. Small development in China - a smallish town of 1000000 people. Large development in Upstate - we may get Wegmans!!!11Quote from: roadman65 on August 10, 2023, 06:55:04 PM
Usually developments are part of a city wide vitilalization project and from I witnessed here, it don't seem part of it. It just a conversion from freeway to arterial to remove a barrier, which is proven to be elevated or suppressed freeways in the modern world..
A major vitalization project is that like of Newport in Jersey City, NJ and there aren't such projects around I-81 that seems close to it. Newport was just the conversion of old railroads and warehouses to a modern office, retail, and residential facilities along a prime waterfront. In Syracuse it looks like they're strengthening a fallen community by bringing back whole neighborhoods.
I don't see revitalization in Syracuse happening on that kind of scale, though. I see a major building here and there being upgraded, but definitely not entire neighborhoods.
Quote from: Rothman on August 10, 2023, 06:42:02 PM
I'm still not seeing much new space for other development, though, so whatever money developers will make in that regard will be minimal.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 11, 2023, 01:54:30 PMExcept, outside of Jefferson and Madison Towers, there aren't that many residential properties next to the viaduct. Upstate and the Psychiatric Center take up the vast bulk of the adjacent property. Pioneer Homes will remain public project housing as it has since 1941.Quote from: Rothman on August 10, 2023, 06:42:02 PM
I'm still not seeing much new space for other development, though, so whatever money developers will make in that regard will be minimal.
Even if there isn't new space, the presence of an elevated freeway depresses the land value of adjacent parcels because living or working right next to such a thing is deemed undesireable by the majority of people. Removing it still helps developers since they'll be able to charge higher rents for spaces adjacent to a "community grid". This is not minimal.
Quote from: seicer on August 09, 2023, 12:58:42 PMI'll take a regular in-kind viaduct for $500, Alex.
But let's keep delaying the inevitable, wasting more taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits, and pitching more infeasible and too-expensive alternatives like a tunnel or a sky-high viaduct.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 11, 2023, 04:19:14 PMI really wonder how many people turned down jobs because commute to that job would involve passing under the highway ..
Does higher viaducts not having the dark tunnel effect beneath it, not separate neighborhoods?
The reason why I ask is in South Tampa, the Leroy Selmon Viaduct was built 30 feet above US 92 and to me I don't see it as barrier between both sides. Ditto for TX SH 146 in Seabrook, TX where the new freeway is over 50 feet above ground and to me I see the same as before it was built as the new freeway don't create a dark area in between the two sides of the highway as a lower underpass would.
In fact the darkness a viaduct creates is, IMO, what cause the mind to see a barrier.
Quote from: Alps on August 11, 2023, 06:58:22 PMQuote from: seicer on August 09, 2023, 12:58:42 PMI'll take a regular in-kind viaduct for $500, Alex.
But let's keep delaying the inevitable, wasting more taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits, and pitching more infeasible and too-expensive alternatives like a tunnel or a sky-high viaduct.
(million)
Quote from: froggie on August 11, 2023, 07:55:19 PMI suspect you don't realize that I meant "in-kind" as a viaduct of the same height, not the same cross section.Quote from: Alps on August 11, 2023, 06:58:22 PMQuote from: seicer on August 09, 2023, 12:58:42 PMI'll take a regular in-kind viaduct for $500, Alex.
But let's keep delaying the inevitable, wasting more taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits, and pitching more infeasible and too-expensive alternatives like a tunnel or a sky-high viaduct.
(million)
FHWA won't allow an "in-kind"...not on an Interstate. But I suspect you knew that already...
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on August 11, 2023, 08:17:18 PM
With the tunnel question. What extra traffic in the next 25 years do you see? None of the Thruway 5 (Buffalo-Rochester-Syracuse-Utica-Albany) are exactly projecting to see a moving boom in the next 25 years. Why should we make room for a tunnel that will never be built for traffic expectations likely to never be realized? Why can't we just tear the viaduct, let the community change and move on? They'll improve the roads around the city and in for the traffic that does exist. I've never seen statistics that say any of the Thruway 5 cities are gonna experience growth.
Quote from: Alps on August 11, 2023, 06:58:22 PMQuote from: seicer on August 09, 2023, 12:58:42 PMI'll take a regular in-kind viaduct for $500, Alex.
But let's keep delaying the inevitable, wasting more taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits, and pitching more infeasible and too-expensive alternatives like a tunnel or a sky-high viaduct.
(million)
Quote from: Rothman on August 12, 2023, 12:26:33 AMMicron is a big "I believe it when I see it". Flash prices collapse, and it's not that qualified per for the fab are abundant, or willing to move to Syracuse.Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on August 11, 2023, 08:17:18 PM
With the tunnel question. What extra traffic in the next 25 years do you see? None of the Thruway 5 (Buffalo-Rochester-Syracuse-Utica-Albany) are exactly projecting to see a moving boom in the next 25 years. Why should we make room for a tunnel that will never be built for traffic expectations likely to never be realized? Why can't we just tear the viaduct, let the community change and move on? They'll improve the roads around the city and in for the traffic that does exist. I've never seen statistics that say any of the Thruway 5 cities are gonna experience growth.
To be fair, Micron's a-coming. That said, it's to the northwest of Syracuse, which means it could be an interesting case of people commuting from the city out to Cicero.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 20, 2023, 04:36:21 PMA bunch of lights, a roundabout, low speed limits, and a couple turns. It's only three minutes slower to take I-481 over I-81 right now, so existing I-481 will definitely be the faster option upon completion. Plus for those who care about taking interstates over other routes, current I-81 won't be part of the interstate system anymore (business routes don't count), so there's that.
You know just because the number is being changed don't mean we have to follow the new I-81 when complete. If we want to follow the original 81, we still can. We just have to get used to some lights, but other than that it's still the same.
So no need to whine about the whole thing. Yeah maybe new exit numbers as well ( mile based to BL I-81) but the rest of the freeway still the same.
Quote from: vdeane on August 20, 2023, 04:53:44 PMQuote from: roadman65 on August 20, 2023, 04:36:21 PMA bunch of lights, a roundabout, low speed limits, and a couple turns. It's only three minutes slower to take I-481 over I-81 right now, so existing I-481 will definitely be the faster option upon completion. Plus for those who care about taking interstates over other routes, current I-81 won't be part of the interstate system anymore (business routes don't count), so there's that.
You know just because the number is being changed don't mean we have to follow the new I-81 when complete. If we want to follow the original 81, we still can. We just have to get used to some lights, but other than that it's still the same.
So no need to whine about the whole thing. Yeah maybe new exit numbers as well ( mile based to BL I-81) but the rest of the freeway still the same.
Not "maybe" on new numbers. I-81, BL 81, and I-690 will all be getting mile-based exit numbers as part of the project. Probably NY 481 too, but the plans online don't show enough to see if the number for US 11 is fudged to avoid alphabet soup of if it's just sequential. The plans online also don't show if NY 690 will get exit numbers, but the I-690 mileage includes it, so I would also say probably on that front.
Quote from: vdeane on August 20, 2023, 04:53:44 PM(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/8154090898_d310f5f2e0_k.jpg)Quote from: roadman65 on August 20, 2023, 04:36:21 PMA bunch of lights, a roundabout, low speed limits, and a couple turns. It's only three minutes slower to take I-481 over I-81 right now, so existing I-481 will definitely be the faster option upon completion. Plus for those who care about taking interstates over other routes, current I-81 won't be part of the interstate system anymore (business routes don't count), so there's that.
You know just because the number is being changed don't mean we have to follow the new I-81 when complete. If we want to follow the original 81, we still can. We just have to get used to some lights, but other than that it's still the same.
So no need to whine about the whole thing. Yeah maybe new exit numbers as well ( mile based to BL I-81) but the rest of the freeway still the same.
Not "maybe" on new numbers. I-81, BL 81, and I-690 will all be getting mile-based exit numbers as part of the project. Probably NY 481 too, but the plans online don't show enough to see if the number for US 11 is fudged to avoid alphabet soup of if it's just sequential. The plans online also don't show if NY 690 will get exit numbers, but the I-690 mileage includes it, so I would also say probably on that front.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 20, 2023, 10:09:47 PMStill said that 3 months ago:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/8154090898_d310f5f2e0_k.jpg)
In 2012 this was here to encourage through I-81 traffic to make the loop.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 21, 2023, 03:53:57 AM
Does anyone know the plan to reconfigure the current I-81 and I-481 exchange on the south side of Syracuse? I imagine it's more than adding lanes to the current NB I-81 to NB I-481 single lane ramp to a two lane ramp or replace the SB 481 to SB 81 flyover to a two lane flyover.
I assume a right side ramp to future BL I-81 will be created and the current free flowing SB I-81 freeway will be realigned to merge with Future I-81 SB on the right.
Plus the Brighton Avenue on-ramp to I-81 NB will be modified to allow access to I-81 SB as well.
Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2023, 06:55:43 AMso that light I take will be at Brighton Avenue? The current 481 SB to Brighten Avenue will be for BL I-81 via the current ramp signal there?Quote from: roadman65 on August 21, 2023, 03:53:57 AM
Does anyone know the plan to reconfigure the current I-81 and I-481 exchange on the south side of Syracuse? I imagine it's more than adding lanes to the current NB I-81 to NB I-481 single lane ramp to a two lane ramp or replace the SB 481 to SB 81 flyover to a two lane flyover.
I assume a right side ramp to future BL I-81 will be created and the current free flowing SB I-81 freeway will be realigned to merge with Future I-81 SB on the right.
Plus the Brighton Avenue on-ramp to I-81 NB will be modified to allow access to I-81 SB as well.
This is where I have a misgiving. The I-81 SB to BL 81 NB connection will no longer be free-flowing and will have a traffic light in it to help with local connections east and west of the interchange.
I use that movement every now and then, so I find that annoying, and, although population is more sparse down by Jamesville and Popley, I would think those people would use that ramp to get downtown. Still, the AADT is what the AADT is...
I'm not sure if there's anything else more remarkable aboit the new configuration.
Quote from: davewiecking on August 20, 2023, 10:50:58 PMQuote from: roadman65 on August 20, 2023, 10:09:47 PMStill said that 3 months ago:
In 2012 this was here to encourage through I-81 traffic to make the loop.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9802874,-76.1311664,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd8jYo-z6Yh7bcVsUJEbOKQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2023, 09:03:01 AM
^ The same website has a graphic (https://webapps.dot.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2022/02/14-board_i-481-vertical-for-printing-2021jun4lo_0.pdf) that answers your earlier question about the southern 81/481 interchange.
Quote from: webny99 on August 21, 2023, 09:20:32 AMI expect that it will still be faster to take I-90/I-81, even with having to go out to current I-481, than to go down I-390 and I-86/NY 17 for much of the Rochester area. Then again, people will often take routes they "feel" are faster, regardless if they actually are, so who knows.Quote from: davewiecking on August 20, 2023, 10:50:58 PMQuote from: roadman65 on August 20, 2023, 10:09:47 PMStill said that 3 months ago:
In 2012 this was here to encourage through I-81 traffic to make the loop.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9802874,-76.1311664,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd8jYo-z6Yh7bcVsUJEbOKQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Not much thru traffic actually uses I-481 though. As noted, it's about 3-4 minutes longer, and that's pretty consistent because there's rarely traffic through downtown Syracuse. That will definitely change with this project, though, as the boulevard will add at least several minutes to the downtown route.
The bigger question remains how the south to east movement will be affected since the current viaduct saves a full 8-9 minutes vs. the other freeway alternatives. My extremely long-term prediction, if/when the entire project in Syracuse is completed as planned, is that there will be a notable increase in traffic on I-86 west of Binghamton and I-390 (especially south of Exit 6) as traffic to/from Buffalo, Rochester and elsewhere in WNY shifts. (I'm hoping that's way into the future, but still shifting to "acceptance mode" for now. :paranoid:)
Quote from: roadman65 on August 21, 2023, 11:56:44 AMScroll to the bottom.Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2023, 09:03:01 AM
^ The same website has a graphic (https://webapps.dot.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2022/02/14-board_i-481-vertical-for-printing-2021jun4lo_0.pdf) that answers your earlier question about the southern 81/481 interchange.
I can't find it as it's only the north end they show details to.. I wouldn't ask if I found it on there, as that would be something for Ethanman, who has been gone for well over a decade who then would be to do for attention.
I do appreciate the link to it though as it does prove useful.
Quote from: webny99 on August 21, 2023, 09:20:32 AMQuote from: davewiecking on August 20, 2023, 10:50:58 PMQuote from: roadman65 on August 20, 2023, 10:09:47 PMStill said that 3 months ago:
In 2012 this was here to encourage through I-81 traffic to make the loop.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9802874,-76.1311664,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd8jYo-z6Yh7bcVsUJEbOKQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Not much thru traffic actually uses I-481 though. As noted, it's about 3-4 minutes longer, and that's pretty consistent because there's rarely traffic through downtown Syracuse. That will definitely change with this project, though, as the boulevard will add at least several minutes to the downtown route.
The bigger question remains how the south to east movement will be affected since the current viaduct saves a full 8-9 minutes vs. the other freeway alternatives. My extremely long-term prediction, if/when the entire project in Syracuse is completed as planned, is that there will be a notable increase in traffic on I-86 west of Binghamton and I-390 (especially south of Exit 6) as traffic to/from Buffalo, Rochester and elsewhere in WNY shifts. (I'm hoping that's way into the future, but still shifting to "acceptance mode" for now. :paranoid:)
Quote from: vdeane on August 21, 2023, 12:59:55 PM
I expect that it will still be faster to take I-90/I-81, even with having to go out to current I-481, than to go down I-390 and I-86/NY 17 for much of the Rochester area. Then again, people will often take routes they "feel" are faster, regardless if they actually are, so who knows.
Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2023, 01:17:03 PMQuote from: webny99 on August 21, 2023, 09:20:32 AM
The bigger question remains how the south toeastwest movement will be affected since the current viaduct saves a full 8-9 minutes vs. the other freeway alternatives. My extremely long-term prediction, if/when the entire project in Syracuse is completed as planned, is that there will be a notable increase in traffic on I-86 west of Binghamton and I-390 (especially south of Exit 6) as traffic to/from Buffalo, Rochester and elsewhere in WNY shifts. (I'm hoping that's way into the future, but still shifting to "acceptance mode" for now. :paranoid:)
South to east...?
Quote from: webny99 on August 21, 2023, 03:13:02 PMLet's see... starting on I-390 south in Henrietta, ending on I-81 south in Binghamton, I-390/I-86/NY 17 is 2h 28m, while I-90/I-690/I-481/I-81 is 2h 28m, so roughly the same (vs. 2h 20m today for I-90/I-690/I-81). Although I-86/NY 17 might "feel" faster due to the lack of backtracking in Syracuse. Feel free to play around (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.0674162,-77.6370607/42.1150052,-75.8984141/@42.6048799,-77.6046359,8.52z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0?entry=ttu).Quote from: vdeane on August 21, 2023, 12:59:55 PM
I expect that it will still be faster to take I-90/I-81, even with having to go out to current I-481, than to go down I-390 and I-86/NY 17 for much of the Rochester area. Then again, people will often take routes they "feel" are faster, regardless if they actually are, so who knows.
Whereas I-90/I-81 is now ~10 minutes faster across the board, it's probably going to become dependent on where in the Rochester area your start/endpoint is. Anywhere west of I-390 is likely to be a toss-up at best, while points east may still favor I-90/I-81 - but that may include using I-690 to the new boulevard, especially at non-peak times.Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2023, 01:17:03 PMQuote from: webny99 on August 21, 2023, 09:20:32 AM
The bigger question remains how the south toeastwest movement will be affected since the current viaduct saves a full 8-9 minutes vs. the other freeway alternatives. My extremely long-term prediction, if/when the entire project in Syracuse is completed as planned, is that there will be a notable increase in traffic on I-86 west of Binghamton and I-390 (especially south of Exit 6) as traffic to/from Buffalo, Rochester and elsewhere in WNY shifts. (I'm hoping that's way into the future, but still shifting to "acceptance mode" for now. :paranoid:)
South to east...?
Whoops, I meant south to west.
Quote from: vdeane on August 21, 2023, 08:35:05 PM
Let's see... starting on I-390 south in Henrietta, ending on I-81 south in Binghamton, I-390/I-86/NY 17 is 2h 28m, while I-90/I-690/I-481/I-81 is 2h 28m, so roughly the same (vs. 2h 20m today for I-90/I-690/I-81). Although I-86/NY 17 might "feel" faster due to the lack of backtracking in Syracuse. Feel free to play around (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.0674162,-77.6370607/42.1150052,-75.8984141/@42.6048799,-77.6046359,8.52z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0?entry=ttu).
Quote from: vdeane on August 21, 2023, 08:35:05 PM
I would not expect traffic to take I-690 to BL 81 in large numbers. Doing so will involve having to take a right and then a left, as there is no direct interchange on I-690 for BL 81 to/from the south. Instead traffic will have to use the Crouse/Irving interchange a couple blocks away. It would be easier to just take the Thruway to exit 36 if one wanted to use BL 81.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 01, 2023, 11:41:08 AMAt some point, there was a delivery of Roundabout-flavored Red Bull to NYSDOT, so plenty were built. Now supply run out, and NYSDOT is learning how to use roundabouts properly.
Are roundabouts common in New York State? I know there are plenty of traffic circles within the state, but what about roundabouts?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 01, 2023, 11:41:08 AMIn certain areas, yes. Compared to MA, traffic circles are actually in shorter supply on average in NY.
Are roundabouts common in New York State? I know there are plenty of traffic circles within the state, but what about roundabouts?
Quote from: Sam on September 03, 2023, 07:24:50 PMWasn't that posted in this thread already? The article was written to time with the current debate over what to do with the surplus land -- land NYSDOT no longer will need to own for a transportation purpose.
https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/racism-by-design-the-building-of-interstate-81
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2024, 04:00:11 PMNo. The first two contracts are progressing through construction, the third contract is still to be awarded, the fourth and fifth are still to be let and the rulings for the lawsuits determining if Phase 2 can proceed have not yet been issued.
Is there anything new to report on this thread?
Quote from: roadman65 on January 17, 2024, 10:28:18 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/jRAK4c8XREezWLk7A
I wonder if the control cities used at Exit 35 will be transferred over to this sign and Syracuse will finally be added as a primary control for Exit 35 once the routes are permanently changed.
Quote from: webny99 on January 17, 2024, 01:55:44 PMQuote from: roadman65 on January 17, 2024, 10:28:18 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/jRAK4c8XREezWLk7A
I wonder if the control cities used at Exit 35 will be transferred over to this sign and Syracuse will finally be added as a primary control for Exit 35 once the routes are permanently changed.
I think you mean Exit 36? Syracuse is already in use at Exit 35.
Quote from: Rothman on January 18, 2024, 07:11:05 PMLimon?
I'm going to choose control cities for the new signage that'll drive the ones obsessed with them nuts.
Quote from: Rothman on January 18, 2024, 07:11:05 PM"Canada" and "Mall" ?
I'm going to choose control cities for the new signage that'll drive the ones obsessed with them nuts.
Quote from: Sam on January 18, 2024, 08:01:41 PMNah. "Bridge to Canada (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7127476,-75.4498426,3a,15.3y,88.18h,87.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sviOJ_M4ED3Xetv66W19Nvw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en-US&entry=ttu)" and "Shopping Mall (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1197102,-75.9648264,3a,29.9y,290.79h,99.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7NFuvCrAz5eBobKGUQ6aVw!2e0!5s20161101T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en-US&entry=ttu)." NYSDOT precedent for both...Quote from: Rothman on January 18, 2024, 07:11:05 PM"Canada" and "Mall" ?
I'm going to choose control cities for the new signage that'll drive the ones obsessed with them nuts.
Quote from: cockroachking on January 18, 2024, 09:22:59 PMBridge to Canada. Last chance before you are screwed!Quote from: Sam on January 18, 2024, 08:01:41 PMNah. "Bridge to Canada (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7127476,-75.4498426,3a,15.3y,88.18h,87.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sviOJ_M4ED3Xetv66W19Nvw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en-US&entry=ttu)" and "Shopping Mall (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1197102,-75.9648264,3a,29.9y,290.79h,99.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7NFuvCrAz5eBobKGUQ6aVw!2e0!5s20161101T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en-US&entry=ttu)." NYSDOT precedent for both...Quote from: Rothman on January 18, 2024, 07:11:05 PM"Canada" and "Mall" ?
I'm going to choose control cities for the new signage that'll drive the ones obsessed with them nuts.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 19, 2024, 04:27:14 PM
It's funny how a change in route number can justify the need to change a control city. Good example is how when the Western Kentucky Parkway became I-69 how the control city changed from Elizabethtown to Henderson. Does the number change really change the driving habits? Has the ADT changed since I-69 got implemented at the Western Kentucky and Penryville Parkways changed now that I-69 is routed from one parkway to another?
I'm sure those that have traveled the whole length of the WP are still doing that and haven't changed their start and endpoints cause a new route takes over. Those who have, let's say, driven from Princeton to Elizabethtown before I-69 are still doing it today, and, really, have more people begin to now drive from Eddyville to Evansville because they created a new interstate using two different previous freeways?
Quote from: Rothman on January 19, 2024, 06:16:54 PMYou're not a moderator. So shut up!Quote from: roadman65 on January 19, 2024, 04:27:14 PM
It's funny how a change in route number can justify the need to change a control city. Good example is how when the Western Kentucky Parkway became I-69 how the control city changed from Elizabethtown to Henderson. Does the number change really change the driving habits? Has the ADT changed since I-69 got implemented at the Western Kentucky and Penryville Parkways changed now that I-69 is routed from one parkway to another?
I'm sure those that have traveled the whole length of the WP are still doing that and haven't changed their start and endpoints cause a new route takes over. Those who have, let's say, driven from Princeton to Elizabethtown before I-69 are still doing it today, and, really, have more people begin to now drive from Eddyville to Evansville because they created a new interstate using two different previous freeways?
This is the I-81 thread. Take more general comments on control cities to one of the many related threads on this forum.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 19, 2024, 04:27:14 PMNot going to touch the Kentucky stuff with a 10 foot pole (at least not in this thread), but with respect to I-81, given the removal of the viaduct, exit 36 won't exactly be a good way to get to Binghamton anymore, so hopefully the Thruway will update their control cities at some point. Unfortunately the signage plans I found on the state's design-build site didn't show them doing so, but they also don't show things like I-81's new exit numbers outside the project area, so I can't imagine they're all-inclusive of everything that will happen.
It's funny how a change in route number can justify the need to change a control city. Good example is how when the Western Kentucky Parkway became I-69 how the control city changed from Elizabethtown to Henderson. Does the number change really change the driving habits? Has the ADT changed since I-69 got implemented at the Western Kentucky and Penryville Parkways changed now that I-69 is routed from one parkway to another?
I'm sure those that have traveled the whole length of the WP are still doing that and haven't changed their start and endpoints cause a new route takes over. Those who have, let's say, driven from Princeton to Elizabethtown before I-69 are still doing it today, and, really, have more people begin to now drive from Eddyville to Evansville because they created a new interstate using two different previous freeways?
Quote from: Rothman on January 18, 2024, 07:11:05 PM
I'm going to choose control cities for the new signage that'll drive the ones obsessed with them nuts.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 20, 2024, 11:35:34 PMOther Upstate CityQuote from: Rothman on January 18, 2024, 07:11:05 PM
I'm going to choose control cities for the new signage that'll drive the ones obsessed with them nuts.
other Upstate Cities
Quote from: vdeane on February 08, 2024, 08:55:46 PMMeh. These exits are outside of the I-81 project limits anyway. I'm pretty certain 380673 had its own design approval. I can check on that.
^ Interesting that they aren't using the same numbers as shown in the I-81 design documents. IMO future exit 1B/1C is the perfect example for why the new MUTCD standard banning the skipping of suffixes in one direction in the case of partial interchanges needs to be less strict. Exit 10 no longer having the same number in each direction is going to be confusing.
Also interesting that the project doesn't show up on the NYSDOT Projects in Your Neighborhood tool at all.
EDIT: That projects page has bigger problems than that. It's listing projects that have already finished as "in development".
Quote from: Rothman on February 08, 2024, 09:28:11 PMWouldn't some of the advance signage for exit 1B be within the I-81 project limits? The sign plans for that show it as exit 2.Quote from: vdeane on February 08, 2024, 08:55:46 PMMeh. These exits are outside of the I-81 project limits anyway. I'm pretty certain 380673 had its own design approval. I can check on that.
^ Interesting that they aren't using the same numbers as shown in the I-81 design documents. IMO future exit 1B/1C is the perfect example for why the new MUTCD standard banning the skipping of suffixes in one direction in the case of partial interchanges needs to be less strict. Exit 10 no longer having the same number in each direction is going to be confusing.
Also interesting that the project doesn't show up on the NYSDOT Projects in Your Neighborhood tool at all.
EDIT: That projects page has bigger problems than that. It's listing projects that have already finished as "in development".
Quote from: vdeane on February 08, 2024, 09:33:55 PMQuote from: Rothman on February 08, 2024, 09:28:11 PMWouldn't some of the advance signage for exit 1B be within the I-81 project limits? The sign plans for that show it as exit 2.Quote from: vdeane on February 08, 2024, 08:55:46 PMMeh. These exits are outside of the I-81 project limits anyway. I'm pretty certain 380673 had its own design approval. I can check on that.
^ Interesting that they aren't using the same numbers as shown in the I-81 design documents. IMO future exit 1B/1C is the perfect example for why the new MUTCD standard banning the skipping of suffixes in one direction in the case of partial interchanges needs to be less strict. Exit 10 no longer having the same number in each direction is going to be confusing.
Also interesting that the project doesn't show up on the NYSDOT Projects in Your Neighborhood tool at all.
EDIT: That projects page has bigger problems than that. It's listing projects that have already finished as "in development".
Quote from: Alps on February 16, 2024, 09:19:08 PMAgreed. I'm gonna say it again, and I'll keep beating this dead horse just like I will with the 710 tunnel in Los Angeles. Ideal scenario they build a tunnel or at least keep Land available for a portal down the line. in the meantime, they could have temporary uses for it like food truck parking or some kind of recreational site. And typical American fashion if tunnels are too much to bear then they can just rebuild the viaduct.
↓bad news.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 16, 2024, 10:04:41 PMIt's New York, so I expect no less.
But unsurprisingly, they chose the worst possible option.
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 01:18:09 AMYeah yeah this is the US after all where new tunnels are a no no.
And Panda, that dead horse of the tunnel is stinking to high heaven. Even the Save 81 or Renew 81 people or whoever else is opposed to tearing down the viaduct would shake their heads at you and dismiss you out of hand at this point.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 17, 2024, 03:03:48 AMMore like it's US, where general public doesn't understand concepts like "water table is too high" or "technical report is just 50 pages, lok it through before bed"Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 01:18:09 AMYeah yeah this is the US after all where new tunnels are a no no.
And Panda, that dead horse of the tunnel is stinking to high heaven. Even the Save 81 or Renew 81 people or whoever else is opposed to tearing down the viaduct would shake their heads at you and dismiss you out of hand at this point.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Oh and god forbid we just put aside some ROW. THE HORROR! Yeah let's not take forward thought looking towards the future credible. Checks out.
Quote from: kalvado on February 17, 2024, 06:44:54 AMOr, "Buying up that much ROW in downtown Syracuse is outright idiotic due to the businesses and other opportunities that would need to be taken."Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 17, 2024, 03:03:48 AMMore like it's US, where general public doesn't understand concepts like "water table is too high" or "technical report is just 50 pages, lok it through before bed"Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 01:18:09 AMYeah yeah this is the US after all where new tunnels are a no no.
And Panda, that dead horse of the tunnel is stinking to high heaven. Even the Save 81 or Renew 81 people or whoever else is opposed to tearing down the viaduct would shake their heads at you and dismiss you out of hand at this point.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Oh and god forbid we just put aside some ROW. THE HORROR! Yeah let's not take forward thought looking towards the future credible. Checks out.
Quote from: Alps on February 17, 2024, 01:09:18 PMWe talked a lot about it up thread. Too difficult in Syracuse soil. Not everything is a rock like Manhattan...
The tunnel is a fantastic option, but too costly to be considered. But ideally, all urban freeways would be emtunnelled so the city is unemfreewayed.
Quote from: kalvado on February 17, 2024, 01:12:24 PMQuote from: Alps on February 17, 2024, 01:09:18 PMWe talked a lot about it up thread. Too difficult in Syracuse soil. Not everything is a rock like Manhattan...
The tunnel is a fantastic option, but too costly to be considered. But ideally, all urban freeways would be emtunnelled so the city is unemfreewayed.
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 10:15:00 AMRemoving I-81 even improve rush hour since, checking Google Maps, the usual traffic appears to be cause by all the downtown traffic from I-81 and I-690 funneling down to a single lane onto Almond Street. That bottleneck will be disappearing.
I mean, Syracuse has a small rush hour as is. It's not like that's going to change, even with Micron coming.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 17, 2024, 01:20:49 PMThere are many other words which can be used. Plausible, realistic, cost effective....Quote from: kalvado on February 17, 2024, 01:12:24 PMQuote from: Alps on February 17, 2024, 01:09:18 PMWe talked a lot about it up thread. Too difficult in Syracuse soil. Not everything is a rock like Manhattan...
The tunnel is a fantastic option, but too costly to be considered. But ideally, all urban freeways would be emtunnelled so the city is unemfreewayed.
What's ideal and what's real are two different things.
Quote from: vdeane on February 17, 2024, 04:27:58 PMQuote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 10:15:00 AMRemoving I-81 even improve rush hour since, checking Google Maps, the usual traffic appears to be cause by all the downtown traffic from I-81 and I-690 funneling down to a single lane onto Almond Street. That bottleneck will be disappearing.
I mean, Syracuse has a small rush hour as is. It's not like that's going to change, even with Micron coming.
Quote from: webny99 on February 17, 2024, 11:00:13 PMNot anyone. The Thruway will remain unchanged...Quote from: vdeane on February 17, 2024, 04:27:58 PMQuote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 10:15:00 AMRemoving I-81 even improve rush hour since, checking Google Maps, the usual traffic appears to be cause by all the downtown traffic from I-81 and I-690 funneling down to a single lane onto Almond Street. That bottleneck will be disappearing.
I mean, Syracuse has a small rush hour as is. It's not like that's going to change, even with Micron coming.
Oh, if you're looking just at freeway congestion, that's limited now and will be likely even less with no I-81 and mostly positive changes coming to I-690.
We won't be regularly seeing red on Google Maps anytime soon, but that was never the issue with the teardown. For commuters, it's the switch from freeway to surface streets (backwards) and for anyone traveling longer-distance, it's the addition of anywhere from 3 to 10 minutes travel time to stay on the freeway (backwards).
Quote from: Alps on February 17, 2024, 01:09:18 PMExtending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.
The tunnel is a fantastic option, but too costly to be considered. But ideally, all urban freeways would be emtunnelled so the city is unemfreewayed.
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:33:04 PMTunnels in general, would be a tricky endeavor to build an urban areas. But we're not gonna get better at building them by not building any.Quote from: Alps on February 17, 2024, 01:09:18 PMExtending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.
The tunnel is a fantastic option, but too costly to be considered. But ideally, all urban freeways would be emtunnelled so the city is unemfreewayed.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 17, 2024, 11:51:36 PMThey're being built when they're considered the best alternative through the project development process dictated by FHWA.Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:33:04 PMTunnels in general, would be a tricky endeavor to build an urban areas. But we're not gonna get better at building them by not building any.Quote from: Alps on February 17, 2024, 01:09:18 PMExtending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.
The tunnel is a fantastic option, but too costly to be considered. But ideally, all urban freeways would be emtunnelled so the city is unemfreewayed.
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:10:24 PMNot sure he mentioned anything about the Thruway?QuoteNot anyone. The Thruway will remain unchanged...
Oh, if you're looking just at freeway congestion, that's limited now and will be likely even less with no I-81 and mostly positive changes coming to I-690.
We won't be regularly seeing red on Google Maps anytime soon, but that was never the issue with the teardown. For commuters, it's the switch from freeway to surface streets (backwards) and for anyone traveling longer-distance, it's the addition of anywhere from 3 to 10 minutes travel time to stay on the freeway (backwards).
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:53:08 PMLol no they're not.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 17, 2024, 11:51:36 PMThey're being built when they're considered the best alternative through the project development process dictated by FHWA.Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:33:04 PMTunnels in general, would be a tricky endeavor to build an urban areas. But we're not gonna get better at building them by not building any.Quote from: Alps on February 17, 2024, 01:09:18 PMExtending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.
The tunnel is a fantastic option, but too costly to be considered. But ideally, all urban freeways would be emtunnelled so the city is unemfreewayed.
Quote from: webny99 on February 17, 2024, 11:00:13 PMEh, it's not that big a change for commuters, given that they were all getting off at exit 18 anyways. A few more blocks is all, and not all going down to one street should help. Agreed about the longer distance traffic, especially as there will be no time savings for taking BL 81 through due to a combination of lights and lack of direct access from I-690.Quote from: vdeane on February 17, 2024, 04:27:58 PMQuote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 10:15:00 AMRemoving I-81 even improve rush hour since, checking Google Maps, the usual traffic appears to be cause by all the downtown traffic from I-81 and I-690 funneling down to a single lane onto Almond Street. That bottleneck will be disappearing.
I mean, Syracuse has a small rush hour as is. It's not like that's going to change, even with Micron coming.
Oh, if you're looking just at freeway congestion, that's limited now and will be likely even less with no I-81 and mostly positive changes coming to I-690.
We won't be regularly seeing red on Google Maps anytime soon, but that was never the issue with the teardown. For commuters, it's the switch from freeway to surface streets (backwards) and for anyone traveling longer-distance, it's the addition of anywhere from 3 to 10 minutes travel time to stay on the freeway (backwards).
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 12:25:03 AMSeattle says hello.Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:53:08 PMLol no they're not.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 17, 2024, 11:51:36 PMThey're being built when they're considered the best alternative through the project development process dictated by FHWA.Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:33:04 PMTunnels in general, would be a tricky endeavor to build an urban areas. But we're not gonna get better at building them by not building any.Quote from: Alps on February 17, 2024, 01:09:18 PMExtending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.
The tunnel is a fantastic option, but too costly to be considered. But ideally, all urban freeways would be emtunnelled so the city is unemfreewayed.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 18, 2024, 12:16:17 AMQuote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:10:24 PMNot sure he mentioned anything about the Thruway?QuoteNot anyone. The Thruway will remain unchanged...
Oh, if you're looking just at freeway congestion, that's limited now and will be likely even less with no I-81 and mostly positive changes coming to I-690.
We won't be regularly seeing red on Google Maps anytime soon, but that was never the issue with the teardown. For commuters, it's the switch from freeway to surface streets (backwards) and for anyone traveling longer-distance, it's the addition of anywhere from 3 to 10 minutes travel time to stay on the freeway (backwards).
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 18, 2024, 11:04:48 AMCompare that with 2.2 billion for 2-mile viaduct removal and associated projects. Before inevitable overruns. In a less than 0.7M area.
Seattle is a far larger (and more prosperous) city than Syracuse. The 2 mile tunnel cost over $3 billion to build and the process took 8 long years, thanks in part to unforeseen "curve balls" thrown at the project along the way, causing years of delays. Seattle's new tunnel wasn't a debacle like the Big Dig in Boston, but it's hardly any kind of success story either. The resulting tunnel only has a pair of 2-lane roads double decked on top of each other. The tunnel's North end doesn't connect to another freeway, such as I-5.
I'm not sure what the after effects will be from the removal of I-81 in Syracuse's downtown area. With no more elevated freeway working as a barrier, will students at Syracuse University be getting mugged, beaten up (or worse) more often? Or does that make any difference? Destiny USA has had all sorts of problems with crime and it's a very car-oriented location. Maybe the other plan is gentrification -replace all that project housing near the University with a bunch of new yuppie condos.
It's possible the area South of downtown could suffer economically due to I-81 being diverted. The area is mostly residential. Anyone wanting to build new commercial businesses would probably want to locate on the West or North sides of town still served by a thru Interstate.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 18, 2024, 11:25:11 AM
Perhaps a more realistic proposal would be a western arc, an outer freeway connecting I-81 South to I-90 West... that would address the soon-to-be-severed I-81 -> I-690 connection.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 18, 2024, 03:51:00 PM
There is too much residential development between the I-81/I-481 interchange and that NY-695 freeway for any new freeway to connect the two. Any partial loop going West of I-81 to I-90 would have to start a few miles South of the existing I-81/I-481 interchange. The route would have to bow out past Camillus and connect with I-90 several miles West of the I-90/I-690 interchange. Is such a route even worthwhile to build?
Quote from: Rothman on February 18, 2024, 07:53:55 AMOh wow, you managed to come up with the predictable example, which is the anomaly to the rule. I would've never of guessed you would bring up the Alaskan Way tunnel. Next thing you know you'll be talking about the big dig. If six or so, miles of tunnel in the last several decades and no more tunnels planned in the future is your idea of them being built in this country, then have fun living in a fantasy land and perpetuating the status quo here. Otherwise you're just arguing over petty semantics.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 12:25:03 AMSeattle says hello.Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:53:08 PMLol no they're not.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 17, 2024, 11:51:36 PMThey're being built when they're considered the best alternative through the project development process dictated by FHWA.Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:33:04 PMTunnels in general, would be a tricky endeavor to build an urban areas. But we're not gonna get better at building them by not building any.Quote from: Alps on February 17, 2024, 01:09:18 PMExtending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.
The tunnel is a fantastic option, but too costly to be considered. But ideally, all urban freeways would be emtunnelled so the city is unemfreewayed.
Yes, they are. As has been pointed out ad nauseam in this thread, there are a whole lot of considerations other than mere cost when it comes to deciding on a tunnel.
Let me know when you've read the alternative analysis for I-81, or any other project (see practically any bridge rehab or replacement project's design approval document). Or, demonstrate you have even endeavored to understand the process.
Otherwise, you're just hollering out of ignorance.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 07:11:05 PMAt the very least, there is a new subway line and underwater Amtrak tunnel in NYC. Costs are, frankly speaking, well beyond affordable and exceed eye popping threshold by a very wide margin.Quote from: Rothman on February 18, 2024, 07:53:55 AMOh wow, you managed to come up with the predictable example, which is the anomaly to the rule. I would've never of guessed you would bring up the Alaskan Way tunnel. Next thing you know you'll be talking about the big dig. If six or so, miles of tunnel in the last several decades and no more tunnels planned in the future is your idea of them being built in this country, then have fun living in a fantasy land and perpetuating the status quo here. Otherwise you're just arguing over petty semantics.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 12:25:03 AMSeattle says hello.Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:53:08 PMLol no they're not.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 17, 2024, 11:51:36 PMThey're being built when they're considered the best alternative through the project development process dictated by FHWA.Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:33:04 PMTunnels in general, would be a tricky endeavor to build an urban areas. But we're not gonna get better at building them by not building any.Quote from: Alps on February 17, 2024, 01:09:18 PMExtending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.
The tunnel is a fantastic option, but too costly to be considered. But ideally, all urban freeways would be emtunnelled so the city is unemfreewayed.
Yes, they are. As has been pointed out ad nauseam in this thread, there are a whole lot of considerations other than mere cost when it comes to deciding on a tunnel.
Let me know when you've read the alternative analysis for I-81, or any other project (see practically any bridge rehab or replacement project's design approval document). Or, demonstrate you have even endeavored to understand the process.
Otherwise, you're just hollering out of ignorance.
Quote from: kalvado on February 18, 2024, 07:17:43 PMI'm specifically referring to road tunnels. For whatever reason this country cannot build road titles, they are a few and far between. But there are dozens if not over 100 Different Rd. tunnel projects going on in the world. Other countries don't bat an eye being able to build them. It's also very telling just how defensive people seem to get, which is on full display in this thread whenever you dare suggest a tunnel was a viable and reasonable option. or when you say you know what maybe the city isn't ready for a tunnel right now but let's just preserve a little right away which would be a very small amount of land downtown and you still have the same usual suspects, again, on full force in this thread, losing their minds and being overly dramatic and their responses trying to convince themselves it shouldn't happen.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 07:11:05 PMAt the very least, there is a new subway line and underwater Amtrak tunnel in NYC. Costs are, frankly speaking, well beyond affordable and exceed eye popping threshold by a very wide margin.Quote from: Rothman on February 18, 2024, 07:53:55 AMOh wow, you managed to come up with the predictable example, which is the anomaly to the rule. I would've never of guessed you would bring up the Alaskan Way tunnel. Next thing you know you'll be talking about the big dig. If six or so, miles of tunnel in the last several decades and no more tunnels planned in the future is your idea of them being built in this country, then have fun living in a fantasy land and perpetuating the status quo here. Otherwise you're just arguing over petty semantics.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 12:25:03 AMSeattle says hello.Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:53:08 PMLol no they're not.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 17, 2024, 11:51:36 PMThey're being built when they're considered the best alternative through the project development process dictated by FHWA.Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:33:04 PMTunnels in general, would be a tricky endeavor to build an urban areas. But we're not gonna get better at building them by not building any.Quote from: Alps on February 17, 2024, 01:09:18 PMExtending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.
The tunnel is a fantastic option, but too costly to be considered. But ideally, all urban freeways would be emtunnelled so the city is unemfreewayed.
Yes, they are. As has been pointed out ad nauseam in this thread, there are a whole lot of considerations other than mere cost when it comes to deciding on a tunnel.
Let me know when you've read the alternative analysis for I-81, or any other project (see practically any bridge rehab or replacement project's design approval document). Or, demonstrate you have even endeavored to understand the process.
Otherwise, you're just hollering out of ignorance.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 07:24:11 PMIf you notice, I am not talking about ROW, just complexity due to high water table and associated costs. And I doubt that things are way different for different flavors of tunnels.Quote from: kalvado on February 18, 2024, 07:17:43 PMI'm specifically referring to road tunnels. For whatever reason this country cannot build road titles, they are a few and far between. But there are dozens if not over 100 Different Rd. tunnel projects going on in the world. Other countries don't bat an eye being able to build them. It's also very telling just how defensive people seem to get, which is on full display in this thread whenever you dare suggest a tunnel was a viable and reasonable option. or when you say you know what maybe the city isn't ready for a tunnel right now but let's just preserve a little right away which would be a very small amount of land downtown and you still have the same usual suspects, again, on full force in this thread, losing their minds and being overly dramatic and their responses trying to convince themselves it shouldn't happen.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 07:11:05 PMAt the very least, there is a new subway line and underwater Amtrak tunnel in NYC. Costs are, frankly speaking, well beyond affordable and exceed eye popping threshold by a very wide margin.Quote from: Rothman on February 18, 2024, 07:53:55 AMOh wow, you managed to come up with the predictable example, which is the anomaly to the rule. I would've never of guessed you would bring up the Alaskan Way tunnel. Next thing you know you'll be talking about the big dig. If six or so, miles of tunnel in the last several decades and no more tunnels planned in the future is your idea of them being built in this country, then have fun living in a fantasy land and perpetuating the status quo here. Otherwise you're just arguing over petty semantics.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 12:25:03 AMSeattle says hello.Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:53:08 PMLol no they're not.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 17, 2024, 11:51:36 PMThey're being built when they're considered the best alternative through the project development process dictated by FHWA.Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:33:04 PMTunnels in general, would be a tricky endeavor to build an urban areas. But we're not gonna get better at building them by not building any.Quote from: Alps on February 17, 2024, 01:09:18 PMExtending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.
The tunnel is a fantastic option, but too costly to be considered. But ideally, all urban freeways would be emtunnelled so the city is unemfreewayed.
Yes, they are. As has been pointed out ad nauseam in this thread, there are a whole lot of considerations other than mere cost when it comes to deciding on a tunnel.
Let me know when you've read the alternative analysis for I-81, or any other project (see practically any bridge rehab or replacement project's design approval document). Or, demonstrate you have even endeavored to understand the process.
Otherwise, you're just hollering out of ignorance.
Quote from: webny99I agree that it would probably have to start south of I-81/I-481, but disagree that it could not connect to the NY 5 stub north of Wegmans in Fairmount. Below is a very primitive potential routing - the solid line is a reasonable route that does not require excessive property takings, and the dotted lines are some potential options for tying into I-81.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 18, 2024, 08:04:37 PMThere are gaps with lighter development that looks kinda like ROW, as if it was preserved for a while and development filled in later. The bigger issues are:Quote from: webny99I agree that it would probably have to start south of I-81/I-481, but disagree that it could not connect to the NY 5 stub north of Wegmans in Fairmount. Below is a very primitive potential routing - the solid line is a reasonable route that does not require excessive property takings, and the dotted lines are some potential options for tying into I-81.
There is quite a lot of residential properties directly South of that NY-5 freeway stub. I think it had been feasible at all to build a freeway loop quadrant from that point down to I-81 it would have happened back in the 1970's. Such a thing is not even remotely possible now. Not with housing prices being so hatefully expensive. The extreme pricing does everything it can to make home owners stay put in their current digs at all costs.
Decades ago it might have been preferable to build a new freeway by plowing a new terrain path through some residential neighborhoods to avoid displacing businesses along an existing surface highway. The reverse is true now. America's commercial real estate industry is falling into a state of crisis (especially in major cities like New York). The Amazons of the Internet has laid waste to brick and mortar retail. So there's a bunch of commercial property owners just dying to sell. Today it's far more complicated, both in legal and political terms, to force people out of their homes at "fair market value" to make way for a freeway.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 07:24:11 PMThe water table is 2 damn high!Quote from: kalvado on February 18, 2024, 07:17:43 PMI'm specifically referring to road tunnels. For whatever reason this country cannot build road titles, they are a few and far between. But there are dozens if not over 100 Different Rd. tunnel projects going on in the world. Other countries don't bat an eye being able to build them. It's also very telling just how defensive people seem to get, which is on full display in this thread whenever you dare suggest a tunnel was a viable and reasonable option. or when you say you know what maybe the city isn't ready for a tunnel right now but let's just preserve a little right away which would be a very small amount of land downtown and you still have the same usual suspects, again, on full force in this thread, losing their minds and being overly dramatic and their responses trying to convince themselves it shouldn't happen.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 07:11:05 PMAt the very least, there is a new subway line and underwater Amtrak tunnel in NYC. Costs are, frankly speaking, well beyond affordable and exceed eye popping threshold by a very wide margin.Quote from: Rothman on February 18, 2024, 07:53:55 AMOh wow, you managed to come up with the predictable example, which is the anomaly to the rule. I would've never of guessed you would bring up the Alaskan Way tunnel. Next thing you know you'll be talking about the big dig. If six or so, miles of tunnel in the last several decades and no more tunnels planned in the future is your idea of them being built in this country, then have fun living in a fantasy land and perpetuating the status quo here. Otherwise you're just arguing over petty semantics.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 12:25:03 AMSeattle says hello.Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:53:08 PMLol no they're not.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 17, 2024, 11:51:36 PMThey're being built when they're considered the best alternative through the project development process dictated by FHWA.Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:33:04 PMTunnels in general, would be a tricky endeavor to build an urban areas. But we're not gonna get better at building them by not building any.Quote from: Alps on February 17, 2024, 01:09:18 PMExtending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.
The tunnel is a fantastic option, but too costly to be considered. But ideally, all urban freeways would be emtunnelled so the city is unemfreewayed.
Yes, they are. As has been pointed out ad nauseam in this thread, there are a whole lot of considerations other than mere cost when it comes to deciding on a tunnel.
Let me know when you've read the alternative analysis for I-81, or any other project (see practically any bridge rehab or replacement project's design approval document). Or, demonstrate you have even endeavored to understand the process.
Otherwise, you're just hollering out of ignorance.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 18, 2024, 08:12:08 PM
Is it likely that the NY 5 freeway might eventually be demolished, and the NY 5 designation be returned to the Genesee St. corridor?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 09:01:02 PMSure it's possible... In theory. Time machine and perpetuum mobile are fundamentally impossible - and that's not the problem grade we are talking about. It's a matter of complexity (cost and construction time) and reliability (cost of maintenance).
All you have to do is a quick Google search and there is a plethora of different links from many different sources, explaining how to build underground construction projects and high water areas. The high water table argument doesn't seem to be very valid.
https://utilitiesone.com/addressing-challenges-of-underground-construction-in-high-water-table-areas
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 09:27:40 PMWell, you are somewhat right here. It's not limited to roads, just today I saw an article talking about building semiconductor fab in US taking much longer than elsewhere.
Maybe but my larger point is this reason of "oh it's too expensive" is just used too much when so many other countries somehow find a way to do it. Tunnels are also better than cutting through mountains allowing wildlife to cross as well. It allows for better connectivity in urban settings while also allowing for regional car travel. This type of stuff needs to be factored in as well.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 07:11:05 PMAgain, it comes down to the analysis of alternatives. So, when a tunnel wins out, it is built.Quote from: Rothman on February 18, 2024, 07:53:55 AMOh wow, you managed to come up with the predictable example, which is the anomaly to the rule. I would've never of guessed you would bring up the Alaskan Way tunnel. Next thing you know you'll be talking about the big dig. If six or so, miles of tunnel in the last several decades and no more tunnels planned in the future is your idea of them being built in this country, then have fun living in a fantasy land and perpetuating the status quo here. Otherwise you're just arguing over petty semantics.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 12:25:03 AMSeattle says hello.Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:53:08 PMLol no they're not.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 17, 2024, 11:51:36 PMThey're being built when they're considered the best alternative through the project development process dictated by FHWA.Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:33:04 PMTunnels in general, would be a tricky endeavor to build an urban areas. But we're not gonna get better at building them by not building any.Quote from: Alps on February 17, 2024, 01:09:18 PMExtending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.
The tunnel is a fantastic option, but too costly to be considered. But ideally, all urban freeways would be emtunnelled so the city is unemfreewayed.
Yes, they are. As has been pointed out ad nauseam in this thread, there are a whole lot of considerations other than mere cost when it comes to deciding on a tunnel.
Let me know when you've read the alternative analysis for I-81, or any other project (see practically any bridge rehab or replacement project's design approval document). Or, demonstrate you have even endeavored to understand the process.
Otherwise, you're just hollering out of ignorance.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 10:24:25 PMA small thing you can do yourself:
Yeah, this is especially true. We definitely need to find a way to reduce our infrastructure cost.
Quote from: Rothman on February 18, 2024, 10:39:11 PMAnd as a personal opinion - the grid wasn't chosen because it was the best, it was chosen because other alternatives were even worse. (not unlike many elections these days).Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 07:11:05 PMAgain, it comes down to the analysis of alternatives. So, when a tunnel wins out, it is built.Quote from: Rothman on February 18, 2024, 07:53:55 AMOh wow, you managed to come up with the predictable example, which is the anomaly to the rule. I would've never of guessed you would bring up the Alaskan Way tunnel. Next thing you know you'll be talking about the big dig. If six or so, miles of tunnel in the last several decades and no more tunnels planned in the future is your idea of them being built in this country, then have fun living in a fantasy land and perpetuating the status quo here. Otherwise you're just arguing over petty semantics.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 12:25:03 AMSeattle says hello.Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:53:08 PMLol no they're not.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 17, 2024, 11:51:36 PMThey're being built when they're considered the best alternative through the project development process dictated by FHWA.Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:33:04 PMTunnels in general, would be a tricky endeavor to build an urban areas. But we're not gonna get better at building them by not building any.Quote from: Alps on February 17, 2024, 01:09:18 PMExtending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.
The tunnel is a fantastic option, but too costly to be considered. But ideally, all urban freeways would be emtunnelled so the city is unemfreewayed.
Yes, they are. As has been pointed out ad nauseam in this thread, there are a whole lot of considerations other than mere cost when it comes to deciding on a tunnel.
Let me know when you've read the alternative analysis for I-81, or any other project (see practically any bridge rehab or replacement project's design approval document). Or, demonstrate you have even endeavored to understand the process.
Otherwise, you're just hollering out of ignorance.
And, because you haven't looked into how the Grid actually became the preferred alternative and how the tunnel was studied not once, but twice to great cost to the taxpayer, you're arguing out of your butt.
Quote from: kalvado on February 19, 2024, 07:30:21 AMThat's a good way of putting it. There was no 100% acceptable solution. Tunnel = ridiculous. Replacement = ROW nightmare. That left the Grid.Quote from: Rothman on February 18, 2024, 10:39:11 PMAnd as a personal opinion - the grid wasn't chosen because it was the best, it was chosen because other alternatives were even worse. (not unlike many elections these days).Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 07:11:05 PMAgain, it comes down to the analysis of alternatives. So, when a tunnel wins out, it is built.Quote from: Rothman on February 18, 2024, 07:53:55 AMOh wow, you managed to come up with the predictable example, which is the anomaly to the rule. I would've never of guessed you would bring up the Alaskan Way tunnel. Next thing you know you'll be talking about the big dig. If six or so, miles of tunnel in the last several decades and no more tunnels planned in the future is your idea of them being built in this country, then have fun living in a fantasy land and perpetuating the status quo here. Otherwise you're just arguing over petty semantics.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 12:25:03 AMSeattle says hello.Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:53:08 PMLol no they're not.Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 17, 2024, 11:51:36 PMThey're being built when they're considered the best alternative through the project development process dictated by FHWA.Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:33:04 PMTunnels in general, would be a tricky endeavor to build an urban areas. But we're not gonna get better at building them by not building any.Quote from: Alps on February 17, 2024, 01:09:18 PMExtending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.
The tunnel is a fantastic option, but too costly to be considered. But ideally, all urban freeways would be emtunnelled so the city is unemfreewayed.
Yes, they are. As has been pointed out ad nauseam in this thread, there are a whole lot of considerations other than mere cost when it comes to deciding on a tunnel.
Let me know when you've read the alternative analysis for I-81, or any other project (see practically any bridge rehab or replacement project's design approval document). Or, demonstrate you have even endeavored to understand the process.
Otherwise, you're just hollering out of ignorance.
And, because you haven't looked into how the Grid actually became the preferred alternative and how the tunnel was studied not once, but twice to great cost to the taxpayer, you're arguing out of your butt.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 18, 2024, 03:51:00 PM
The NY-695 and NY-5 freeway stubs on the West side of Syracuse are failed projects of what could have been longer freeways. I lived in that area during the early 1980's and those freeway stubs were there even back then. I don't know the history of I-481, but I suspect there was some plan for a SW quadrant that would have connected into where the NY-5 freeway stub ends at Genesee Street.
There is too much residential development between the I-81/I-481 interchange and that NY-695 freeway for any new freeway to connect the two. Any partial loop going West of I-81 to I-90 would have to start a few miles South of the existing I-81/I-481 interchange. The route would have to bow out past Camillus and connect with I-90 several miles West of the I-90/I-690 interchange. Is such a route even worthwhile to build?
Quote from: froggie on February 19, 2024, 08:57:27 AMQuote from: Bobby5280 on February 18, 2024, 03:51:00 PM
The NY-695 and NY-5 freeway stubs on the West side of Syracuse are failed projects of what could have been longer freeways. I lived in that area during the early 1980's and those freeway stubs were there even back then. I don't know the history of I-481, but I suspect there was some plan for a SW quadrant that would have connected into where the NY-5 freeway stub ends at Genesee Street.
There is too much residential development between the I-81/I-481 interchange and that NY-695 freeway for any new freeway to connect the two. Any partial loop going West of I-81 to I-90 would have to start a few miles South of the existing I-81/I-481 interchange. The route would have to bow out past Camillus and connect with I-90 several miles West of the I-90/I-690 interchange. Is such a route even worthwhile to build?
This is from the region's early 1970s transportation plan (click on the map for my Flickr page and a larger image):
[img snipped]
So even 50 years ago, considerations for a southwest loop were to NOT have it directly tie into 81/481.
Quote from: webny99 on February 19, 2024, 10:35:53 AMGeographically viable? Heck no. Anyone who's been over the hills out of the Valley on NY 173 can see this first hand.Quote from: froggie on February 19, 2024, 08:57:27 AMQuote from: Bobby5280 on February 18, 2024, 03:51:00 PM
The NY-695 and NY-5 freeway stubs on the West side of Syracuse are failed projects of what could have been longer freeways. I lived in that area during the early 1980's and those freeway stubs were there even back then. I don't know the history of I-481, but I suspect there was some plan for a SW quadrant that would have connected into where the NY-5 freeway stub ends at Genesee Street.
There is too much residential development between the I-81/I-481 interchange and that NY-695 freeway for any new freeway to connect the two. Any partial loop going West of I-81 to I-90 would have to start a few miles South of the existing I-81/I-481 interchange. The route would have to bow out past Camillus and connect with I-90 several miles West of the I-90/I-690 interchange. Is such a route even worthwhile to build?
This is from the region's early 1970s transportation plan (click on the map for my Flickr page and a larger image):
[img snipped]
So even 50 years ago, considerations for a southwest loop were to NOT have it directly tie into 81/481.
Is development since then entirely prohibitive? Setting aside the political/financial reasons this will never happen, from a pure geographical and ROW perspective I can see this approximate route still being viable, with a tie-in to I-81 between Nedrow and Exit 16.
Quote from: Rothman on February 19, 2024, 11:11:26 AMQuote from: webny99 on February 19, 2024, 10:35:53 AMGeographically viable? Heck no. Anyone who's been over the hills out of the Valley on NY 173 can see this first hand.
Is development since then entirely prohibitive? Setting aside the political/financial reasons this will never happen, from a pure geographical and ROW perspective I can see this approximate route still being viable, with a tie-in to I-81 between Nedrow and Exit 16.
And demolishing Gannon's Isle Ice Cream in particular would cause riots.
Then, remember the Onondaga Nation's extreme opposition to I-81 when it was built originally, so routing anything futher south would also be not viable.
Quote from: webny99 on February 19, 2024, 11:37:34 AMQuote from: Rothman on February 19, 2024, 11:11:26 AMQuote from: webny99 on February 19, 2024, 10:35:53 AMGeographically viable? Heck no. Anyone who's been over the hills out of the Valley on NY 173 can see this first hand.
Is development since then entirely prohibitive? Setting aside the political/financial reasons this will never happen, from a pure geographical and ROW perspective I can see this approximate route still being viable, with a tie-in to I-81 between Nedrow and Exit 16.
And demolishing Gannon's Isle Ice Cream in particular would cause riots.
Then, remember the Onondaga Nation's extreme opposition to I-81 when it was built originally, so routing anything futher south would also be not viable.
What about the geography has changed since the '70's that would have made it viable then, but not now?
Quote from: William ShakespeareDouble, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and caldron bubble.
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the caldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and howlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and caldron bubble.
Cool it with a baboon's blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.