Interstate 81 in Syracuse

[The Ghostbuster]

Is it likely that the NY 5 freeway might eventually be demolished, and the NY 5 designation be returned to the Genesee St. corridor?

[vdeane]

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 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 has 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.

There are gaps with lighter development that looks kinda like ROW, as if it was preserved for a while and development filled in later.  The bigger issues are:
1. Continuing south of the stub would take out the Wegmans loading area
2. Development is continuous along I-81 all the way to the Onondaga Nation Reservation.

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.

The water table is 2 damn high!



Seriously, why is that so hard to get?  Different areas have different conditions.  Syracuse just isn't a great candidate, even setting aside the very high cost and that NY can't afford it.  Especially since Syracuse is quite small and isn't going to become a busting metropolis.  The size of the freeway system may make it feel comparable to Rochester and Buffalo, but in some ways it actually has more in common with Utica (in truth, it's in between).

[Plutonic Panda]

All you have to do is a quick Google search and there is a plethora of different links from many different sources, explaining how to build underground construction projects and high water areas. The high water table argument doesn't seem to be very valid.

https://utilitiesone.com/addressing-challenges-of-underground-construction-in-high-water-table-areas

[webny99]

Is it likely that the NY 5 freeway might eventually be demolished, and the NY 5 designation be returned to the Genesee St. corridor?

Why would it be demolished? It serves thru traffic between Syracuse and Auburn plus several of the western suburbs, and provides a vital connection to the rest of the freeway network via NY 695. And it's six lanes east of Camillus! The traffic issues that would cause on Genesee St makes removal a non-starter.

[kalvado]

All you have to do is a quick Google search and there is a plethora of different links from many different sources, explaining how to build underground construction projects and high water areas. The high water table argument doesn't seem to be very valid.

https://utilitiesone.com/addressing-challenges-of-underground-construction-in-high-water-table-areas

Sure it's possible... In theory. Time machine and perpetuum mobile are fundamentally impossible - and that's not the problem grade we are talking about. It's a matter of complexity (cost and construction time) and reliability (cost of maintenance).
Sometimes it's just wiser to look at other options than to pay through the nose.

[Plutonic Panda]

Maybe but my larger point is this reason of "oh it's too expensive" is just used too much when so many other countries somehow find a way to do it. Tunnels are also better than cutting through mountains allowing wildlife to cross as well. It allows for better connectivity in urban settings while also allowing for regional car travel. This type of stuff needs to be factored in as well.

[kalvado]

Maybe but my larger point is this reason of "oh it's too expensive" is just used too much when so many other countries somehow find a way to do it. Tunnels are also better than cutting through mountains allowing wildlife to cross as well. It allows for better connectivity in urban settings while also allowing for regional car travel. This type of stuff needs to be factored in as well.

Well, you are somewhat right here. It's not limited to roads, just today I saw an article talking about building semiconductor fab in US taking much longer than elsewhere.
My opinion here is pretty strong, but political discussions are not welcomed on this forum. Let's just put it so - I don't see a way to correct this situation without supermajor changes to political structure.

[Bobby5280]

Not only are changes in politics needed, but the regulatory process needs to be greatly streamlined. Most of all, America needs to do something about its legal industry. We might not actually have 70% of the world's attorneys, but we do have over 1.3 million of those legal mouths to feed. Any highway infrastructure project represents a huge business opportunity for law firms.

It costs a ridiculous amount of money to build tunnels anywhere in the world. But the United States routinely makes those costs just go over the f***king rainbow. So we just don't bother doing it. We run into the same problems building major bridges, attempts at high speed rail lines or any other "big" construction projects. Lawyers wanna get paid. And we have a government of the lawyers, for the lawyers and by the lawyers. The political party dog and pony show, culture wars and all that other crap is just a bunch of BS to keep everyone distracted. That way they don't have to work on getting anything real accomplished.

[Plutonic Panda]

Yeah, this is especially true. We definitely need to find a way to reduce our infrastructure cost.

[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.

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.

Again, it comes down to the analysis of alternatives.  So, when a tunnel wins out, it is built.

And, because you haven't looked into how the Grid actually became the preferred alternative and how the tunnel was studied not once, but twice to great cost to the taxpayer, you're arguing out of your butt.

[kalvado]

Yeah, this is especially true. We definitely need to find a way to reduce our infrastructure cost.

A small thing you can do yourself:
whenever you buy anything electric, look for UL, ETL or similar testing symbol - and DO NOT BUY if it is "certified".  Common advice is "It's a must"  - totally opposite. It's not a legal requirement outside of the workspace. (It may still be required by electric code for permanently installed electric features though)
That is one of the strict and useless requirements to extract a few pennies out of most purchases you make and increase the entry threshold for competition. 

[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.

Again, it comes down to the analysis of alternatives.  So, when a tunnel wins out, it is built.

And, because you haven't looked into how the Grid actually became the preferred alternative and how the tunnel was studied not once, but twice to great cost to the taxpayer, you're arguing out of your butt.

And as a personal opinion - the grid wasn't chosen because it was the best, it was chosen because other alternatives were even worse. (not unlike many elections these days).

[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.

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.

Again, it comes down to the analysis of alternatives.  So, when a tunnel wins out, it is built.

And, because you haven't looked into how the Grid actually became the preferred alternative and how the tunnel was studied not once, but twice to great cost to the taxpayer, you're arguing out of your butt.

And as a personal opinion - the grid wasn't chosen because it was the best, it was chosen because other alternatives were even worse. (not unlike many elections these days).

That's a good way of putting it.  There was no 100% acceptable solution.  Tunnel = ridiculous.  Replacement = ROW nightmare.  That left the Grid.

I still think about the original I-81 Viaduct Project Director saying that the project should have been called the I-690 Reconstruction Project, because of the sheer size of the single Phase 2 contract itself (add in Crouse/Irving and it's half the cost of the entire project).

[froggie]

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?

This is from the region's early 1970s transportation plan (click on the map for my Flickr page and a larger image):



So even 50 years ago, considerations for a southwest loop were to NOT have it directly tie into 81/481.

As for the western end of the Camillus bypass, the same transportation plan gave considerations for extending that out towards Auburn, not looping back up to I-90.  NY 695 and I-690 take care of that.

[webny99]

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?

This is from the region's early 1970s transportation plan (click on the map for my Flickr page and a larger image):

[img snipped]

So even 50 years ago, considerations for a southwest loop were to NOT have it directly tie into 81/481.

Is development since then entirely prohibitive? Setting aside the political/financial reasons this will never happen, from a pure geographical and ROW perspective I can see this approximate route still being viable, with a tie-in to I-81 between Nedrow and Exit 16.

[Rothman]

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?

This is from the region's early 1970s transportation plan (click on the map for my Flickr page and a larger image):

[img snipped]

So even 50 years ago, considerations for a southwest loop were to NOT have it directly tie into 81/481.

Is development since then entirely prohibitive? Setting aside the political/financial reasons this will never happen, from a pure geographical and ROW perspective I can see this approximate route still being viable, with a tie-in to I-81 between Nedrow and Exit 16.

Geographically viable?  Heck no.  Anyone who's been over the hills out of the Valley on NY 173 can see this first hand.

And demolishing Gannon's Isle Ice Cream in particular would cause riots.

Then, remember the Onondaga Nation's extreme opposition to I-81 when it was built originally, so routing anything futher south would also be not viable.

[Rothman]

Regarding the "stub" of the eastern end of the NY 5 bypass, I posted the map somewhere I have in my office which shows how it was proposed to turn east and tie into West St, even encroaching on the Zoo.

Here's a link.  For some reason, Flickr still refuses to provide a BBC code sharing shortcut and I'm too lazy to type it out on my phone...

https://flic.kr/p/2oRPjsg

[webny99]

Is development since then entirely prohibitive? Setting aside the political/financial reasons this will never happen, from a pure geographical and ROW perspective I can see this approximate route still being viable, with a tie-in to I-81 between Nedrow and Exit 16.

Geographically viable?  Heck no.  Anyone who's been over the hills out of the Valley on NY 173 can see this first hand.

And demolishing Gannon's Isle Ice Cream in particular would cause riots.

Then, remember the Onondaga Nation's extreme opposition to I-81 when it was built originally, so routing anything futher south would also be not viable.

What about the geography has changed since the '70's that would have made it viable then, but not now?

This particular routing would not impact Gannon's Isle or anything else in Valley - it crosses NY 173 west of OCC and drops quite a bit further south before turning east.

EDIT: I see that the southern routing would clip the northern edge of Onondaga Nation, but I would call that a political issue, not a geographical one.

[Rothman]

Is development since then entirely prohibitive? Setting aside the political/financial reasons this will never happen, from a pure geographical and ROW perspective I can see this approximate route still being viable, with a tie-in to I-81 between Nedrow and Exit 16.

Geographically viable?  Heck no.  Anyone who's been over the hills out of the Valley on NY 173 can see this first hand.

And demolishing Gannon's Isle Ice Cream in particular would cause riots.

Then, remember the Onondaga Nation's extreme opposition to I-81 when it was built originally, so routing anything futher south would also be not viable.

What about the geography has changed since the '70's that would have made it viable then, but not now?

Nothing.  It would boil down to environmental concerns and costs for cuts or however else it would get through there under the wild and crazy old days.

[roadman65]

What about the traffic end of this. Perhaps the city also wants the traffic for once to bypass the city center? Having I-81 realigned will do just that. Is this a factor as well?

[J N Winkler]

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and caldron bubble.
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the caldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and howlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and caldron bubble.
Cool it with a baboon's blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.

That's tunnel construction for you.

Part of the reason tunnelling is cheaper in other jurisdictions is that the necessary plant (which includes really expensive items like tunnel boring machines) can be amortized over multiple contracts, while contractors as a whole have more experience with construction techniques such as slurry walls.  But a higher volume of tunnelling overall also translates into many more mishaps and failures, many of which have proven quite expensive.  It's not just a question of higher overall cost compared to options like viaducts and fill (retained or not):  the costs are also much more difficult to pin down.

In the past year I've seen the ANAS in Italy advertise at least three contracts that are designed to finish tunnels that the respective contractors abandoned midway through after encountering gnarly problems with water intrusion.  I also follow high-speed railway construction in Spain, and last year ADIF advertised a contract that will essentially build a pumping station to move trapped groundwater from one side of a slurry-wall tunnel to the other to keep it from flooding.  The problems the Spanish have had with the Pajares Tunnel are the stuff of legend.

Skeptical as I am of the Community Grid alternative in Syracuse--my own starting point would have been a complete rebuild of the I-81 viaduct to modern standards--I don't have a hard time seeing why a tunnel in the corridor would have been pretty much a non-starter.