Interstate 81 in Syracuse

[vdeane]

I mean, Syracuse has a small rush hour as is.  It's not like that's going to change, even with Micron coming.

Removing 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.

[kalvado]

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.

We talked a lot about it up thread. Too difficult in Syracuse soil. Not everything is a rock like Manhattan...

What's ideal and what's real are two different things.

There are many other words which can be used. Plausible, realistic, cost effective....

[webny99]

I mean, Syracuse has a small rush hour as is.  It's not like that's going to change, even with Micron coming.

Removing 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.

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).

[Rothman]

I mean, Syracuse has a small rush hour as is.  It's not like that's going to change, even with Micron coming.

Removing 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.

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).

Not anyone.  The Thruway will remain unchanged...

[Rothman]

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.

Extending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

Extending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.

Tunnels 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.

[Rothman]

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.

Extending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.

Tunnels 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.

They're being built when they're considered the best alternative through the project development process dictated by FHWA.

[froggie]

Not only is a tunnel a dead horse, but it was already studied ad nauseam.  And from a purely technical perspective, a tunnel wouldn't work for the simple fact that providing access between 690 and a tunneled 81 to/from the south would have impacted and closed WAY TOO MANY east-west streets (basically every street from Genessee to Erie Blvd) due to the grade changes.  Plus there just isn't enough through traffic from south of Almond St to north of 690 to warrant a "through tunnel" that would avoid the access-to-690 complications (such a tunnel was suggested by local legislators previously).

[sprjus4]

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).

Not anyone.  The Thruway will remain unchanged...

Not sure he mentioned anything about the Thruway?

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

Extending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.

Tunnels 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.

They're being built when they're considered the best alternative through the project development process dictated by FHWA.

Lol no they're not.

[vdeane]

I mean, Syracuse has a small rush hour as is.  It's not like that's going to change, even with Micron coming.

Removing 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.

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).

Eh, 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.

[Rothman]

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.

Extending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.

Tunnels 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.

They're being built when they're considered the best alternative through the project development process dictated by FHWA.

Lol no they're not.

Seattle says hello.

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.

[webny99]

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).

Not anyone.  The Thruway will remain unchanged...

Not sure he mentioned anything about the Thruway?

Yes, just to clarify I meant through traffic that currently uses the viaduct (mostly I-81 thru traffic and I-81 to I-690 and I-90 to/from the west).

[Bobby5280]

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

Syracuse is likely too small of a city to warrant constructing a tunnel. If the soon-to-be-demolished viaduct had been built in a city with a population of 1 million people, then maybe replacing it with a tunnel might be practical. If one wants to talk about a tunnel in the Syracuse area, start a thread in Fictional Highways.

[sprjus4]

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.

[kalvado]

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.

Compare that with 2.2 billion for 2-mile viaduct removal and associated projects. Before inevitable overruns. In a less than 0.7M area.

[webny99]

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.

I would love to see NY 695 extended south/east via the NY 5 freeway stub to meet I-81 somewhere near the current I-481 junction, but that is unfortunately fictional at this point. The first mile or so has a really clear path, and there's a foreseeable route north of and parallel to NY 173 as far as Onondaga Hill, but the last mile or two west of I-81 is where it gets really thorny. There's significant terrain in that area too; Syracuse's southernmost neighborhood, Valley, is aptly named.

[Bobby5280]

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?

[webny99]

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?

I 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. Seeing as I agree that a direct tie-in to I-81/I-481 is likely not feasible, I included a second dotted line that veers south of Onondaga Hill. That would have to tie in further south, but that would not eliminate its utility as a bypass.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

Extending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.

Tunnels 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.

They're being built when they're considered the best alternative through the project development process dictated by FHWA.

Lol no they're not.

Seattle says hello.

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.

Oh 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.

[kalvado]

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.

Extending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.

Tunnels 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.

They're being built when they're considered the best alternative through the project development process dictated by FHWA.

Lol no they're not.

Seattle says hello.

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.

Oh 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.

At 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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

Extending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.

Tunnels 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.

They're being built when they're considered the best alternative through the project development process dictated by FHWA.

Lol no they're not.

Seattle says hello.

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.

Oh 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.

At 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.

I'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.

[kalvado]

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.

Extending tunnels when urban areas grow would be a tricky endeavor.

Tunnels 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.

They're being built when they're considered the best alternative through the project development process dictated by FHWA.

Lol no they're not.

Seattle says hello.

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.

Oh 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.

At 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.

I'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.

If 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.
But costs quoted for the tunnel are in line with other estimates, making thing prohibitive cost-wise. Which means it's not viable.
Well, even existing plan is prohibitive, but it's one of those "must do" things after all.

[Bobby5280]

I 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 if 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 have 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.