Interstate 81 in Syracuse

[Rothman]

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.

You'd be surprised.  State's been rushing to get the contracts out to construction.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[Flyer78]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

It'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.

It also shows the original configuration of the I-690/Thruway interchange, with the traffic light on I-690.

[machias]

I see contract #3 (preliminary version) is up for modifications to several bridges near Downtown on future BL-81.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_LETTING_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=19899

With plans
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D265065

[vdeane]

"Business Loop Entrance" (page 399) - wouldn't "freeway entrance" be appropriate given that the portion north of I-690 will be remaining a freeway?

[Henry]

"Business Loop Entrance" (page 399) - wouldn't "freeway entrance" be appropriate given that the portion north of I-690 will be remaining a freeway?

I 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.)

[machias]

"Business Loop Entrance" (page 399) - wouldn't "freeway entrance" be appropriate given that the portion north of I-690 will be remaining a freeway?

I found the US 298 markers on sheet 426 interesting.
Sheet 430 has a BGS that will be overlayed the existing, which seems odd.
The scattered 81I reference markers are interesting as well, since I assumed the route number would be changed to 81BL

[cl94]

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.

[kalvado]

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.

I 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.

[The Ghostbuster]

I could easily see how removing the viaduct would cause gentrification. The main reason I oppose demolition of the viaduct is because the viaduct is because it fully connects with other segments of the freeway system and is not a spur like some of the other freeways previously demolished. The area where the viaduct currently exists may be less of an eyesore without the viaduct, but I am not convinced removing the viaduct would improve traffic flow in the area. Also, if the area is gentrified by the viaduct's demolition, the residents pushed out will definitely not have an improved quality of life with the viaduct gone.

[Rothman]

I don't see much room being opened for new construction due to the viaduct being torn down.  What has happened and is happening in Syracuse is renovation of older buildings, like the Smith and Corbett buildings.  Syracuse has already started to move to protect low-income housing options in the City (not sure if such measures have passed quite yet).

So, I don't see gentrification being generated by I-81's demolition as being a major issue. 

[astralentity]

Forgive me if I sound old and crotchety, but I hope the whole "community grid" thing gets shot down.  I see it just shifting the traffic load elsewhere and not helping access around Syracuse.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[astralentity]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

Court can't stop it.  It can really only delay it.

[kalvado]

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.

Court can't stop it.  It can really only delay it.

One thing for sure - court cannot extend viaduct lifetime...  and that seems to be running low.

[seicer]

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.

[kalvado]

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.

In other words it's business as usual in the USA, isn't it?

[Roadgeek Adam]

I'm at the point where I'm also on the support of demolition and no rebuilding/replacement. Don't need more lawsuits to stop it. Just start demolition (which groundbreaking has already occurred) and let's move on. I also am concerned about issues with gentrification, even if there is protections designed for some parts. I am a big supporter of Section 8 housing and it should be part of the changes.

[Duke87]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

Pfft.  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.

Moreover, your description of the opponent's stances is not in line with what the State court found.

There is another case against FHWA, but I believe nothing is expected to move there until the fall and the expectation of the result is the same.

The real consensus is that the idea that since the EIS was completed before the announcement or even awareness of Micron being guaranteed makes the lower court's ruling very weak indeed.

In any matter, eventual judicial victories will ensure that appropriate removals of urban freeways will continue to be considered.  If anything, the State is learning how it can set itself up for summary judgment motions in case this wasteful path is pursued by opponents in the future.

A new governor that pulls the brakes on this locally popular project would risk backlash for wasting the millions spent already, including the work already being done at the northern interchange.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[seicer]

I'm not certain that the state violated the law by "excluding" suburban communities that were included in the planning process from the beginning. But because the highway is already constructed as Interstate 481, those overblown concerns of more traffic being put onto a highway with ample capacity (with spot improvements to come) were dismissed or mitigated. Just because some communities along the route may have had differing opinions doesn't mean that they were excluded or that it stops the process. As noted, the FHWA signed off each step of this process.

The recent court ruling just specifies that additional traffic studies need to be done because of Micron, which came about after the alternative was selected.

[Plutonic Panda]

It's just unfathomable to me how opposed certain people like a particular poster in this thread is to merely planning and preserving right of away for a tunnel to be built decades from now, if demand ever calls.

[seicer]

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 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.

[kalvado]

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 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.

Other aspect of it is even preserving ROW requires a rough design to make sure preserved areas actually would work.
Given the problems - soil, water table - I guess even defining required areas is a bit too uncertain to bother. Not to mention that entire project is  prohibitively expensive even in it's cheaper version. It's only due to "must fix" situation that things are happening at all.