Interstate 81 in Syracuse

[amroad17]

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.

[Rothman]

BL-81 will just be one of those elements of the system that will cause grief for some roadgeeks for years to come.

[vdeane]

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. 

That 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.

BL-81 will just be one of those elements of the system that will cause grief for some roadgeeks for years to come.

I 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.

And why does it seems like the decision makers in transportation are making decisions that roadgeeks grumble about more and more often?  I'm not even talking about shifts to favoring non-motorized modes of transportation, but stuff like BL 81, duplicating numbers (see: the Southway), I-69E/C/W, VT's "milepoint exit numbers", etc.

[froggie]

And 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.

[sparker]

And 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.

I would have rephrased the question; to wit:  why are the decision makers in the official transportation arena making decisions, particularly in matters of signage, route continuity, and designations in general, that seem arbitrary, often counterintuitive, and basically lacking in context -- historical and otherwise?   

IMO, the answers are twofold:  former state highway departments, in most venues, have "morphed" into more omnibus transportation agencies that have reset priorities away from expedition of road travel, and the level of both interest in this sort of thing and expertise at it have dissipated over the past couple of decades (Caltrans being a prime example of this dynamic -- or lack thereof); a correlated phenomenon is that the current generation of transportation planners at both the state and MPO level have incorporated a higher level of what is described as "urbanist" standards and criteria, which has further exacerbated the shift away from automotive accommodation.  Second, a concurrent reduction in public-sector revenues coupled with inflationary pressure has shrunk the available funding pool, so with the priority shifts cited above there's scant bandwidth within DOT's to address all the issues facing the agencies on a regular basis, so "triage" of priorities has meant that human resources, including research capabilities, aren't consistently directed toward things considered relatively trivial or inconsequential such as the designation/signage issues we're talking about here.  And that means that decisions are often made with less than optimal information by folks under pressure to put the matter to rest and move on to something else.  Of course, this results in suboptimal decision-making; but short of a concerted push to replace DOT officials (and SCOURN, for that matter!) with Forum contributors , it's something with which we'll all have to live for the time being.

[Rothman]

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.

[vdeane]

And 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.

That'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).

[storm2k]

And why does it seems like the decision makers in transportation are making decisions that roadgeeks grumble about more and more often?

Because politicians, mostly. Don't forget we have Interstate 99 because Bud Shuster decided he liked the idea of Interstate 99 even though 99 doesn't fit into the grid (neither does 97, honestly, especially because it's a relatively tiny stretch that would have been better off being a x95 spur, but I digress). And the fun stuff that NC has been doing, eh. Texas does the same chicanery. I'm way less of a proponent of needing a red, white, and blue shield on every road than some of you so long as the roads that are built or upgraded make sense for the area they're in and people can find their way from Point A to Point B.

[sparker]

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.

In short, someone at NYSDOT just didn't really give a shit about the designation; while the characterization of that designation decision as minor -- in a relative sense -- to the decision to actually remove the freeway is valid, it's still a decision that will have some effect upon the driving public and shouldn't be dismissed as irrelevant.  The term that comes to mind is thoughtless -- in a more literal sense, lack of thought before, during, and after such a decision process.   You claim that it's not lack of resources or the metamorphosis of DOT's into a wider range of modes and concerns that is responsible for such decisions; if I and the other forum contributors can press upon your knowledge of the workings of your agency, please inform us, as exactly as possible, how the decision process for these apparently "lower-priority" issues works -- what information goes into the hopper, what comes out, and is there some sort of feedback loop to vet these decisions? 

These are things that in the past were deemed important enough to be given serious consideration.  And it's not just the NY agency that tends to render questionable choices these days; it's a sort of malaise that affects DOT's nationwide.  And if it's not the present DOTs' configuration, and it's not lack of funds to pay folks to actually do the research needed to arrive at a reasonable decision, and it's not a widespread internal view that "nobody gives a shit; why should we!" regarding such "secondary" considerations as designation and signage, then just what is the overarching factor here?  There's enough of you DOT employees in the forum contributor pool; a birds-eye view of the factors, influences, and attitudes that eventually produce a product and/or policy that comes out the other end would certainly be informative.  Just remember you work for a DOT, not the CIA!  We don't need minutiae; just insight!       

[Rothman]

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.

[sparker]

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.

Looks like this particular DOT's perception of driver apathy has bred agency apathy as well, which will undoubtedly result in dubious decisions being made down the line.  If our esteemed forum contributor's attitude is typical of said agency, it's no wonder this atmosphere pervades the process (the disclaimer at the bottom of the entry notwithstanding).  Unfortunately, this agency is hardly unique in that respect -- but my questions as to what makes these agencies assume that position still stand -- that the situation exists is a given, and acknowledged by said contributor -- but why it exists or is allowed to has yet to be elucidated.  Possibly the folks within this sort of public-sector entity have instituted a "brick wall" approach to such things -- that policy is decided elsewhere, and they're just there to implement those decisions (what I'd call the Public Administration 101 syndrome*); with little or no feedback loops by which decisions are assessed.  Any way one looks at it, it's a pretty dismal state of affairs.  Perhaps someone somewhere would demonstrate the wherewithal to break the apathy cycle -- someone who sees the job as more than just a paycheck!

* Disclaimer:  I have a MPA and have been through that particular wringer -- but fortunately in a program that emphasized the questioning of established practices. 

[Rothman]

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.

[seicer]

I can't find a single comment from a vested party (by the public to NYSDOT) that is concerned about route numbering.

[kalvado]

I can't find a single comment from a vested party (by the public to NYSDOT) that is concerned about route numbering.

If 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.

[seicer]

That's not what I meant. During the public hearings.

[US 89]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

BL-81 will go along the perimeter of downtown Syracuse on surface streets.  Although it has freeway sections on the north and south, the rest of it acts like any business loop I've been on.  There'll even be a cheap, crowded Speedway at which to get gas on the route, I believe.

[vdeane]

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.

I 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.

[sparker]

Question:  Exactly who came up with the business loop 81 concept and what is their position within or connection to NYSDOT?  From what's been bandied about, it was either a lodging chain or their representative concerned about continued business, which seems a bit squirreley to me.  Were there alternatives proposed, or was the decision made more or less off the top of someone's head?  The lack of previous business loops/spurs in NY seems to point to the latter, since there wasn't official precedent for such a designation. 

If the BL 81 plans proceed as planned, we'll just have to see if it causes any user confusion down the line; my own educated guess, informed by the Biz 80 situation in Sacramento, is that there will be some issues, particularly with out-of-town drivers visiting the state fair or the university.  It just seems to be a waste of effort and scant funds to deploy signage for a potentially problematic designation when a little more forethought and imagination -- and even a minimal level of research -- might avoid such issues.  But I can also see how our two regular NYSDOT staff contributors may wish to keep an arm's length from overt involvement in these matters; having dealt with Caltrans on numerous occasions as both an academic researcher and as a consultant, it seems that, more often than not, adopting a "CYA" mode when functioning in an official capacity is necessary considering the atmosphere in which the agencies must operate; in this respect they have my understanding and more than a little sympathy.

[ixnay]

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.

He is the Hon. John Katko.

https://katko.house.gov/contact/email

ixnay

[Rothman]

Katko seems more preoccupied with the southern border than I-81 currently.

[kalvado]

And the project is inching forward. Preliminary Draft Design Report/Draft Environmental Impact Statementare released.
https://static.parsons.com/I-81-DEIS/07-2021/

[TheDon102]

what a disaster

[sparker]

what a disaster

I think the appropriate term is FUBAR!  While the original solution is merely questionable, the subsequent plans to make it at least acceptable (and rational) have been worse.  It's like NYSDOT is pretending that the remaining freeway north of I-690 isn't a real freeway (and maybe that's the misbegotten intent in order to appease certain RE/T influences).  Sleight-of-hand, however, only goes so far; when driver confusion occurs down the line, it'll certainly be interesting to see if agency management forms a circular firing squad when blame/responsibility is being assessed! 

[vdeane]

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:

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)