Interstate 81 in Syracuse

[sprjus4]

Yes... I'm fully aware. I'm stating what needs to happen given the situation... not necessarily what advocates are actually going to push for and get done which is demolition without replacement.

[sparker]

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.  And 6 minimum lanes in between as stated above!

[webny99]

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.

[sparker]

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.

I'd tend to agree; a lot of the 481 traffic is likely shunting over that route from the Turnpike to get to I-690 and downtown -- nevertheless, to accommodate both through and local traffic, the entirety of current 481 south of I-90 needs to be brought out to 6 lanes.  But the flyover/expansion of the current north cloverleaf is also a must-do, regardless of how many lanes it feeds.

[froggie]

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.

These are already part of the grid alternative.  I also don't think existing 481 will need 6 lanes south of Genessee St (NY 5/92 for the non-locals).  I do agree a more uniform 6-laning (instead of the currently-proposed auxiliary lanes) between 690 and the Thruway is needed for this alternative to work.

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.

[sprjus4]

with only about 2-2.5K of that going between the aforementioned 81 South and 90 West.

Does that number factor in I-81 to I-690? No one is taking I-81 directly to I-90.

[froggie]

That's everyone going between 81 south of 481 and 90 west of 690, regardless of whether they're taking 81 directly to 90 or cutting the corner on 690.

[webny99]

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 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.

[kalvado]

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 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.

Those who need to go from NYC to Toronto are generally flying. Same with NYC to Buffalo. DC to Ottawa is likely mostly documents.
Truck traffic is still there, of course, but I don't expect high volume goods, like coal sand or wheat to follow those paths. Oh, and railroad doesn't go along that viaduct.

[vdeane]

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.

Speaking from personal experience, PA and ON plates are quite common west of Syracuse, and rare to non-existent east of Syracuse (where the main out of state plates are from New England, at least until I-87, when NJ and QC become common).  A lot of traffic drops at exit 39, too.  I would expect that I-81/I-690/I-90 is the main route for PA to/from the Finger Lakes and Lake Ontario.

(personal opinion)

[sprjus4]

Those who need to go from NYC to Toronto are generally flying. Same with NYC to Buffalo. DC to Ottawa is likely mostly documents.

That's a bold assumption to make.

It's not like New York to California. All of these are easily within a days drive.

The concern of through traffic is a legitimate one that should not be dismissed. And I wouldn't be surprised if the figures cited in the NYSDOT study were skewed... It seems reasonable to assume at least 10,000 AADT making that north to west movement, if not more.

[sprjus4]

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.

So then it's skewed. Plain and simple.

[froggie]

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 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.

[Alps]

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.

It 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.

[Rothman]

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 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.

Have 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.

[dkblake]

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.

It 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.

Exactly. Also to add onto this, the population of Onondaga County is about the same between 1960 and now- obviously that's below average "growth," but there are as many people around Syracuse now as there were then. One reason that people moved out of the Syracuse city limits (and many other cities, of course) is that the new interstate spur routes facilitated commuting from the suburbs. I-690 allows you to live in Fayetteville/Manlius/DeWitt and commute downtown, for example. So arguments using only the actual city population of a Northeastern city with a relatively small area and a spur route that doesn't stay strictly within city limits seem a little silly.

[Plutonic Panda]

Something something tunnel

[The Ghostbuster]

A tunnel would have been too expensive, and likely would have had insufficient traffic demand to justify building it in the Interstate 81 corridor. You would be more likely to see a proposed tunnel to be built in, say, New York or Los Angeles (and even in those places, its construction likelihood would be very iffy). I personally would have preferred the viaduct to be reconstructed as a viaduct, with safety and design improvements (and likely better aesthetics). However, since the state's DOT has settled on converting the viaduct into a boulevard, that is what is going to be constructed.

[Plutonic Panda]

For some reason other countries can build tunnels left and right but in America it's always too expensive.

[vdeane]

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 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.

Have 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.

Probably 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.

And yes, losing the ability to get everywhere by interstate is something I'm not looking forward to losing if/when I move back to Rochester.  It's bad enough the connection between Rochester and I-95 around DC is mostly non-interstate.  We don't need to make this problem worse.  As currently proposed, the I-81 removal would single-handedly make Rochester like Buffalo in terms of connectivity; north would have to leave the interstate system proper to drive on a business route (read: fake interstate), and south to Philly/NYC would have to either take the boulevard or go out of the way (south to other places already has to deal with non-interstate US 15).  Why do Rochester and Buffalo have such bad north-south connectivity?  North makes sense due to the lake, but why south too?

This move also screws over people living in the metro?  Live in Baldwinsville, Salina, or Camillus?  Prepare to lose your freeway access to/from the south!  Of course, those areas never had proper freeway access to/from the north, and Liverpool never had proper non-Thruway access to anywhere.  Travel around Syracuse would seem to suck for everywhere except DeWitt, even before the removal happens.

All this to save $300 million (peanuts compared to the overall cost of the project) and further the anti-freeway agenda.

(personal opinion)

[Rothman]

Those extra minutes going out to current I-481 are just going to be intolerable or impossible, eh?  It's really not a total loss of interstate access.

I don't know how enthused I am about losing the viaduct and I know getting out of downtown is going to be a mess -- NYSDOT is pushing the new connections at Crouse and Irving, while diverting attention from the poorer connection to the south -- but saying that you can't use interstates any longer from Rochester is an exaggeration.

[vdeane]

Well, let's look at the times.  I-690 west of I-81 to I-81 south of I-481 (covers both Syracuse suburbs as well as Finger Lakes traffic): 4 minutes/4.2 miles now, 12 minutes/12.3 miles over current I-481.  More than double.  Ridiculous.  Heck, even if you wanted to take the boulevard, the last plan I saw didn't have a direct interchange with I-690.

Want to look at from the Thruway west of exit 39?  15 minutes/14.2 miles now, 22 minutes/22.3 miles for I-690 to I-481, and 23 minutes/24.9 miles (plus THREE more lines each way on your E-ZPass statement - so a round trip from Rochester would go from 4 lines to 10).

In any case, just looking at the route on a map shows how far out of the way it is.  Going today, someone would say you were crazy to take I-481 over I-81 unless there was a crash or something.  And yet, we are going to be forcing people to go that way.  Even for the route of I-81 itself, it will go from the smooth, natural curves of its current route to a jagged, harsh route that on a map will reveal the truth - that I-81 was shoved onto another road to remove part of it.  Even heading from the west to the north - the freeway will still be there, but the interstate won't, not unless the state changed it's mind again.  A business route will be there instead of a real interstate (sorry, but if it's not colored blue on TM, it's not an interstate).  The interstate lines on the map will no longer work as a system there.  At all.  As someone who loves the systems-based planning that was done in the past and hates the corridor-based and project-based planning that's done now, it's a bitter pill to swallow (in fact, I would go so far as to say that Nixon's block-granting of the system was the worst thing that ever happened to the interstates in the whole history of the system).

And yes, I am the type of person who chooses where to live based on how well you can get to other places on the interstate and freeway systems (the parts of the Thruway along the former ticket system don't count).  Let's just say that Syracuse already doesn't have many places that aren't missing a major connection somewhere, and it's only going to get worse.

[Rothman]

An extra 8 minutes.  Yep, an inconvenience, but at least it's all freeway.

[sprjus4]

Might as well just route I-390 -> I-86 at this point with that added time. Avoids the Thruway too.

[Rothman]

Also makes me wonder how long it will take to snake through Syracuse on new BL I-81.  I mean, Crouse and Irving send you up the Hill, if you stay on I-690.  Otherwise, you get off somewhere to get through that Oswego Blvd mess to eventually turn right on Almond.  That's got to take at least as long as the runaround on I-481.  I'd rather keep moving, at least.