Interstate 81 in Syracuse

[seicer]

I assume I-81 will be the next highway to receive mileage based exit signs?

[machias]

I assume I-81 will be the next highway to receive mileage based exit signs?

Yes, the renumbering of all the interchanges on Interstate 81 in New York is part of the first one or two phases of the relocation of I-81 to existing I-481 in Syracuse. The relocation will modify mile markers north of current exit 29 by five miles as well.

[The Ghostbuster]

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?

[froggie]

^ Let's get through construction first.  Things are just getting started.

[Rothman]

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?

Not 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.

(personal opinion expressed)

[vdeane]

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 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.

(personal opinion)

[machias]

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 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.

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.

[vdeane]

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 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.

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.

But will the NY 690 portion get exit numbers, or will the exit numbers just disappear once the interstate ends?

[abqtraveler]

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 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.

[Rothman]

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 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.

I hear an echo.

[abqtraveler]

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 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.

I hear an echo.

Sorry, I didn't see your previous post in the thread.

[amroad17]

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 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.

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.

NY 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.

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".   

[silverback1065]

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.

[kalvado]

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.

That'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.

[webny99]

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.

[machias]

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 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.

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.

NY 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.

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".   

I'm off the camp that all freeway/expressway interchanges should be numbered, regardless of how many interchanges are on that freeway. So yes, NY 690 should have numbered interchanges, and the NY 5 Bypass should also have numbered interchanges, and all should be based on mileage as outlined by the MUTCD. The mileposts on the NY 5 bypass run contrary to the MUTCD.  The NY 690/I-690 combo as one entity would also run contrary to the MUTCD if the NY 690 section isn't rebadged as I-690, but if it's not funded as an interstate route, it shouldn't carry the interstate designation. I'm good with it all having one set of interchange numbers and mile markers, as that part of the country just calls it "Route 690" anyway.

[ixnay]

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?

[kalvado]

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?

I 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. 

[Rothman]

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?

Yes, 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.

[silverback1065]

last off topic question. are they going to remove the rest of the IL? 

[kalvado]

last off topic question. are they going to remove the rest of the IL? 

Last time I checked, Illinois is going to stay where it is in foreseeable future.

[froggie]

^ It's too flat to do anything with anyway...

[silverback1065]

last off topic question. are they going to remove the rest of the IL? 

Last time I checked, Illinois is going to stay where it is in foreseeable future.

Was that a joke? it fell flat.

[Rothman]

last off topic question. are they going to remove the rest of the IL? 

Last time I checked, Illinois is going to stay where it is in foreseeable future.

Was that a joke? it fell flat.

Not really.  I found it to be apt.  And your unintended pun was amusing.

[webny99]

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