Interstate 81 in Syracuse

[Michael]

I took a glance at the new draft design when I saw it mentioned on Syracuse.com, and spent most of this evening taking a closer look at the updated plans.  Two changes stood out to me: a lot of sound walls, and work along the NY 5/NY 92 duplex.

The sound walls will be in the following locations for the Community Grid (there may be some I missed, but it's an 841 page PDF!):

• near the current I-481/I-690 interchange
• I-690 westbound from east of Peat Street to east of Beech Street
• I-81 from north of Driver's Village to the northern I-81/I-481 interchange
• replacement of the existing wood walls at the northern end of I-481
• partial walls along I-81 from north of Taft Road to the northern I-81/I-481 interchange
• I-81 northbound between the Thruway and US 11 Mattydale exit (with a small gap between the Thruway and I-81 trumpet)

The viaduct replacement would have those sound walls, along with others through the city on both I-81 and I-690 and I-481 between Rock Cut Road and Jamesville Road, but it looks like the wood ones on I-481 wouldn't be replaced.  I wonder how much cost all those walls will add to either option!

In the Community Grid plan, the three eastbound lanes on NY 5/92 will be extended west to just west of Erie Blvd, and a second turn lane will be added for NY 92 at the eastern split.  At the I-481 interchange, the south to east loop will be replaced with a triple left at the current south to west ramp.  While it's often annoying to have more stoplights, I think this will actually help, and I've considered it before.  I've experienced weaving with traffic entering I-481, and I've seen the loop full of cars.  Since I always continue on NY 5 eastbound after it splits from NY 92, I move to the left as soon as possible so I'm not forced onto NY 92.  One time, I stopped at the Wegmans just to the east, and had to move over twice pretty quick.  Even though it was busy, it was surprisingly easier than I was expecting, but I've seen it busier to the point where I probably wouldn't have been able to make it.  Even if the viaduct were picked, I think I'd still like to see the loop replaced with a triple left.

Regarding the BL-81 vs. I-x81 discussion above, I noticed that documents from 2016 suggested an I-x81 for the segment from I-481 to I-690.  This visual simulation shows BGSes for I-581, like suggested above.  As for confusion, I wouldn't be surprised.  I sometimes hear people refer to the NY 5 Camillus Bypass, NY 695 and I-690 as "I-690", "690", or "695" for all three routes.

Two last thoughts:

First, I noticed they redesigned the I-81 project site.  I was looking for the repository, but couldn't find it.  I noticed it was part of the URL for the PDFs I could get, but when I went to it, it showed up for a moment then redirected to the new site.  If I keep hitting [ESC] to stop loading at the right time, I can still access the old repository.

Second, I wonder how many people realize that with either option, this project is a lot bigger than just the viaduct.  It's rebuilding all of I-81 through Syracuse (literally from the south to north city line), and I-690 through downtown.  Add the two I-81/I-481 interchanges and I-481 improvements if the Community Grid is picked.

[vdeane]

Wow.  I wonder what the reason for all those sound walls is.  Normally sound walls only get put in when a major project is happening in the immediate area.

I do wonder just what the benefit of BL 81 is supposed to be.  I could see trying to throw Pyramid and the hotels a bone... but they're still angry, even after the announcement a year or two ago that there would be a business route (and probably always will be, short of an about-face to rebuild the viaduct).  The only other reasons I can think are as follows: appease the advocates by getting rid of interstate mileage, even if the freeway north of I-690 isn't removed (next thing you know, they'll turn I-690 into BL 90; Region 3, please don't get any ideas!); some manager saw business routes out west and thinks they're neat, and decided to use his authority to bring one to NY.

(personal opinion)

[The Ghostbuster]

Maybe the portion that is being converted into a boulevard could be signed as To Interstate 690 northbound, and To Interstate 81 southbound. The portion north of Interstate 690 could be redesignated as an x81 3di. That might be more practical than running a BL-81 through the city.

[machias]

Maybe they should get rid of state funds for the portion that's being downgraded to BL 81 and make it a county route. It's not like it's serving the motorists of the state anymore.

[Rothman]

Anyone actually going to submit their comments to NYSDOT/FHWA?

[machias]

Anyone actually going to submit their comments to NYSDOT/FHWA?

I have submitted several comments to FHWA and NYSDOT on the subject. It's good to maintain a dialog with them and they respond 80-85% of the time. Since I no longer live in the northeast I've refrained from further comment. I save that for my family that still lives in the area. None of them like the community grid idea. At all.  As my uncle says, "it does not make sense for me to get from Liverpool to Binghamton I have to drive through Dewitt". Many of them figure the viaduct will fall down before anything is actually done about it. Maybe we're all cranky about the subject because it's slightly maddening.

[vdeane]

So for anyone interested in commenting on anything, this article has information about where to submit comments.  The same site also has some information on when different parts of the project will be done.  NYSDOT also posted a video with renderings of the business loop:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slIsfAMO-Gg

All this reminded me to actually take a deeper look at the draft EIS, which I had been meaning to do but was busy with the Wilmington meet (and then forgot).  I found a couple interesting this.  First, would be this quote on page 67 (3-32) of the alternatives chapter:

FHWA and NYSDOT considered other options for the re-designation of the other interstate segments within the project area. These included re-designation of the eastern section of I-690 (between approximately I-81 and I-481) and the I-81 north segment (between I-690 and the northern I-81/I-481 interchange) as I-481. These options were dismissed because they would have caused additional building acquisitions.

I remember speculating that the BL 81 designation had something to do with the removal of constructing the missing ramps at the I-690/I-81 interchange from the project (something else that I'm not quite happy with; Syracuse won't have a freeway system so much as a bunch of freeways that serve their own corridors and tell the other freeways to f*** off).  Seems I was right.  FHWA doesn't like partial interchanges these days.

Appendix A-6 is also interesting, specifically attachment 4, which begins on page 283, with the conceptual signage plans.  It seems that I-81 and BL 81 aren't the only roads getting mile-based exit numbers here; I-690 will as well (perhaps will NY 690 gaining exit numbers?) and NY 481 will also get new numbers (hard to tell from what's shown if they're sequential or mile-based with fudging to avoid a suffix at US 11, but I'm guessing on the latter as everything else is mile-based).  It would have been easy to just make the BL 81 freeway exit 12, West Street exit 11 alone, and the new interchange exit 13, and to leave NY 481 alone, but it seems like that temptation is resisted and Region 3 will be the first to fully convert to mile-based numbers.

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

He seems to be more interested in I-81 than this comment would imply:
https://www.waer.org/news/2021-07-22/rep-katko-encourages-constituents-to-take-advantage-of-i-81-public-comment-period

[cl94]

I just want to see how long the court battles are going to be dragged out. I fully expect it will be a while given the amount of money anti-relocation people have in their pockets.

[Rothman]

So for anyone interested in commenting on anything, this article has information about where to submit comments.  The same site also has some information on when different parts of the project will be done.  NYSDOT also posted a video with renderings of the business loop:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slIsfAMO-Gg

All this reminded me to actually take a deeper look at the draft EIS, which I had been meaning to do but was busy with the Wilmington meet (and then forgot).  I found a couple interesting this.  First, would be this quote on page 67 (3-32) of the alternatives chapter:

FHWA and NYSDOT considered other options for the re-designation of the other interstate segments within the project area. These included re-designation of the eastern section of I-690 (between approximately I-81 and I-481) and the I-81 north segment (between I-690 and the northern I-81/I-481 interchange) as I-481. These options were dismissed because they would have caused additional building acquisitions.

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

He seems to be more interested in I-81 than this comment would imply:
https://www.waer.org/news/2021-07-22/rep-katko-encourages-constituents-to-take-advantage-of-i-81-public-comment-period

Pfft.  Had the DEIS not been released, he'd still be spamming Facebook about the southern border.

[Rothman]

I just want to see how long the court battles are going to be dragged out. I fully expect it will be a while given the amount of money anti-relocation people have in their pockets.

Anti-relocation?

So far, legal challenges have been minimal.

[silverback1065]

so they're going with removal and rerouting onto 481?

[Rothman]

so they're going with removal and rerouting onto 481?

Well, yes...hence the lengthy discussion in the thread.

[vdeane]

So for anyone interested in commenting on anything, this article has information about where to submit comments.  The same site also has some information on when different parts of the project will be done.  NYSDOT also posted a video with renderings of the business loop:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slIsfAMO-Gg

All this reminded me to actually take a deeper look at the draft EIS, which I had been meaning to do but was busy with the Wilmington meet (and then forgot).  I found a couple interesting this.  First, would be this quote on page 67 (3-32) of the alternatives chapter:

FHWA and NYSDOT considered other options for the re-designation of the other interstate segments within the project area. These included re-designation of the eastern section of I-690 (between approximately I-81 and I-481) and the I-81 north segment (between I-690 and the northern I-81/I-481 interchange) as I-481. These options were dismissed because they would have caused additional building acquisitions.

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

He seems to be more interested in I-81 than this comment would imply:
https://www.waer.org/news/2021-07-22/rep-katko-encourages-constituents-to-take-advantage-of-i-81-public-comment-period

Pfft.  Had the DEIS not been released, he'd still be spamming Facebook about the southern border.

Looks like someone is trying really hard to dissuade amroad17, ixnay, and any others from contacting Katko about this without outright saying so.  Gee, I wonder why... perhaps BL 81 was your pet idea and you're afraid that there's even a slight chance that Congress could take that away from you?

(seriously, I'm ~66% sure that BL 81 is your idea given your title and that I'm not sure how else Region 3 would have even known interstate business routes exist, unless FHWA suggested it when it was decided to not build the two missing ramps)

For what it's worth, I explained how things would be designated to Mom and she said it was confusing.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Maybe FHWA has recently got a bug up their ass about lack of connections between intersecting Interstates, but out here in CA we have several of these (such as 5/710 in L.A. and all 3 corners of the "Tracy Triangle"), so that particular aversion sounds more like an excuse for suboptimal designation/signage than a rationale for such.  Perhaps some one in NYSDOT made an assumption rather than actually determining whether a "real" 3di Interstate designation for the remainder of present I-81 would be acceptable.  BTW, the concept of relocating I-481 to that section and then subsuming the east part of I-690 -- just because the existing ramps aim in that direction -- seems to be an overly complex solution to a problem that should be relatively simple.  If I-481 is to be redesignated as trunk I-81, the number should be retired and a new designation applied to the northern freeway remainder as needed (why I originally suggested I-681 for that purpose) simply to avoid confusion between the "old" and "new" I-481. 

And applying "green shield"/identical number business loop signage to freeway facililties was and is the dumbest idea since New Coke (funny how both germinated in the early '80's -- misguided/unimaginative minds must think alike!).

[Rothman]

So for anyone interested in commenting on anything, this article has information about where to submit comments.  The same site also has some information on when different parts of the project will be done.  NYSDOT also posted a video with renderings of the business loop:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slIsfAMO-Gg

All this reminded me to actually take a deeper look at the draft EIS, which I had been meaning to do but was busy with the Wilmington meet (and then forgot).  I found a couple interesting this.  First, would be this quote on page 67 (3-32) of the alternatives chapter:

FHWA and NYSDOT considered other options for the re-designation of the other interstate segments within the project area. These included re-designation of the eastern section of I-690 (between approximately I-81 and I-481) and the I-81 north segment (between I-690 and the northern I-81/I-481 interchange) as I-481. These options were dismissed because they would have caused additional building acquisitions.

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

He seems to be more interested in I-81 than this comment would imply:
https://www.waer.org/news/2021-07-22/rep-katko-encourages-constituents-to-take-advantage-of-i-81-public-comment-period

Pfft.  Had the DEIS not been released, he'd still be spamming Facebook about the southern border.

Looks like someone is trying really hard to dissuade amroad17, ixnay, and any others from contacting Katko about this without outright saying so.  Gee, I wonder why... perhaps BL 81 was your pet idea and you're afraid that there's even a slight chance that Congress could take that away from you?

(seriously, I'm ~66% sure that BL 81 is your idea given your title and that I'm not sure how else Region 3 would have even known interstate business routes exist, unless FHWA suggested it when it was decided to not build the two missing ramps)

For what it's worth, I explained how things would be designated to Mom and she said it was confusing.

Pfft.  The decision predated my time being anywhere near involved with the project by a couple of years, if not more (I-81 has really been underway for about seven years).

I don't care if anyone contacts Katko.  I was merely commenting on the issues that he has recently been distracted by prior to the DEIS and making an indirect comment on them having little to do with Central NY.

[vdeane]

How long has BL 81 been a thing, though?  I don't recall ever seeing it prior to the previous DEIS released a couple years ago.  Before that, it was the boulevard version with full ramp movements and some form of interstate designation, either I-481 over I-690 and I-81 (which strikes me as needlessly complicated), or a new number with a state route extension.  And before that, the viaduct was the preferred alternative.  So from the public understanding at least, BL 81 hasn't been around for most of the project history.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Maybe FHWA has recently got a bug up their ass about lack of connections between intersecting Interstates, but out here in CA we have several of these (such as 5/710 in L.A. and all 3 corners of the "Tracy Triangle"), so that particular aversion sounds more like an excuse for suboptimal designation/signage than a rationale for such.  Perhaps some one in NYSDOT made an assumption rather than actually determining whether a "real" 3di Interstate designation for the remainder of present I-81 would be acceptable.  BTW, the concept of relocating I-481 to that section and then subsuming the east part of I-690 -- just because the existing ramps aim in that direction -- seems to be an overly complex solution to a problem that should be relatively simple.  If I-481 is to be redesignated as trunk I-81, the number should be retired and a new designation applied to the northern freeway remainder as needed (why I originally suggested I-681 for that purpose) simply to avoid confusion between the "old" and "new" I-481. 

And applying "green shield"/identical number business loop signage to freeway facililties was and is the dumbest idea since New Coke (funny how both germinated in the early '80's -- misguided/unimaginative minds must think alike!).

No, I've heard about the partial interchange thing straight from FHWA (not regarding I-81, but in one of the trainings they periodically held prior to COVID).  Think of it as yet another facet of interstate standards that wasn't much of a thing when the system was first built but has become more strictly enforced over the years (largely due to the issues partial interchanges have caused, especially when an interchange was built as a partial because the missing movements were intended to be handled by a facility that was ultimately never built).

[Rothman]

Sure, the public hasn't seen BL-81 until more recently, but the decision was made much prior to their knowledge.

Are you not involved in project development, vdeane?

[sparker]

How long has BL 81 been a thing, though?  I don't recall ever seeing it prior to the previous DEIS released a couple years ago.  Before that, it was the boulevard version with full ramp movements and some form of interstate designation, either I-481 over I-690 and I-81 (which strikes me as needlessly complicated), or a new number with a state route extension.  And before that, the viaduct was the preferred alternative.  So from the public understanding at least, BL 81 hasn't been around for most of the project history.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Maybe FHWA has recently got a bug up their ass about lack of connections between intersecting Interstates, but out here in CA we have several of these (such as 5/710 in L.A. and all 3 corners of the "Tracy Triangle"), so that particular aversion sounds more like an excuse for suboptimal designation/signage than a rationale for such.  Perhaps some one in NYSDOT made an assumption rather than actually determining whether a "real" 3di Interstate designation for the remainder of present I-81 would be acceptable.  BTW, the concept of relocating I-481 to that section and then subsuming the east part of I-690 -- just because the existing ramps aim in that direction -- seems to be an overly complex solution to a problem that should be relatively simple.  If I-481 is to be redesignated as trunk I-81, the number should be retired and a new designation applied to the northern freeway remainder as needed (why I originally suggested I-681 for that purpose) simply to avoid confusion between the "old" and "new" I-481. 

And applying "green shield"/identical number business loop signage to freeway facililties was and is the dumbest idea since New Coke (funny how both germinated in the early '80's -- misguided/unimaginative minds must think alike!).

No, I've heard about the partial interchange thing straight from FHWA (not regarding I-81, but in one of the trainings they periodically held prior to COVID).  Think of it as yet another facet of interstate standards that wasn't much of a thing when the system was first built but has become more strictly enforced over the years (largely due to the issues partial interchanges have caused, especially when an interchange was built as a partial because the missing movements were intended to be handled by a facility that was ultimately never built).

Interesting in that none of the "missing movements" here in CA (which also includes 5/505 at Dunnigan) were never, according to Caltrans/DOH records, actually planned.  The NB 5>SB 710 movement has always been accomplished (and trailblazed as such) on Atlantic Avenue (the original alignment of SSR 15/LRN 167, the designations used when the interchange was opened in 1957).  When the I-710 designation for then-CA 7 was applied in 1984, that pair of missing movements apparently didn't faze FHWA, since the actual signage occurred the following year.  Moving north to the "Tracy Triangle", where the series of missing movements actually prevents a driver from circumnavigating the routes; the rationale could be the original (pre-'63) I-5E/5W split that occurred at the southern triangle point, with I-205 taking the place (although featuring a far-field configuration!) of that particular missing movement.  Until its status as a major Bay Area commuter exurb commenced in the late '80's, Tracy was more or less a "sleepy farm town" and RR junction and likely not deemed significant enough to serve with full directional capabilities (even today the prevailing commuter traffic patterns aren't really affected by the lack of those movements).  So it looks like in years past FHWA considered the circumstances and/or environment of each case on an individual basis; why they're "cracking down" and functionally applying a "one size fits all" set of criteria today is a mystery -- unless there's a deliberate internal policy to discourage Interstate designations in cases such as the Syracuse systemic modifications, possibly to avoid or circumvent negative publicity or "backlash" from the more vocal RE/T advocates who, in "knee-jerk" fashion, tend to equate Interstates with past policies and/or DOT practices they oppose.  In short, DOT policies in this regard may well lean toward the "CYA" position, preferring to institute a suboptimal designation just to "put the matter to bed", so to speak; more or less echoing the cliche' "better to ask forgiveness later than permission now" if the BL81 designation proves problematic down the line. 

[vdeane]

More uniformity is indeed the trend that I've observed.  Just look at how the MUTCD has evolved in its last couple iterations.  While I could see the current leadership in the federal government pandering to RE/T advocates like that, I don't think the last administration would have, and BL 81 is at least that old as a concept.

Sure, the public hasn't seen BL-81 until more recently, but the decision was made much prior to their knowledge.

Are you not involved in project development, vdeane?

From the way you talk, it sounds like it might have been made shortly after the boulevard concept went public.  Looks like Region 3 was continuing to work on the grid even as Cuomo chased his tunnel dream.

And no, I'm not hugely involved with project development beyond preparing Smart Growth forms and the RR grade crossing projects that I help out with.  Too low on the totem pole for that!  I've helped out with our HDSB functions (even did most of the job to fill in when that position was between people and when the current person was on leave a few years ago; not sure how that will be going forward, if the pandemic killed off the HPMS field survey for good), was involved with our ADA inventory and transition plan update, and have been on MPO working groups, among other things - largely what a manager who is now retired called "soft planning".  And, of course, we haven't had anything in Region 1 on the level of I-81 through Syracuse in the time I've been with DOT.

(personal opinion)

[webny99]

I don't want to get too political here, but genuinely curious: is there any chance that anything changes with regards to I-81 with Kathy Hochul replacing Cuomo as governor?

I had a chance to look through some of the plans that vdeane linked to upthread, and I'm disappointed overall, but s-l-o-w-l-y warming up to the I-481 improvements and the idea that the boulevard might be a reality someday. I firmly believe a western bypass (roughly along the NY 173 corridor) is going to be needed and should be seriously evaluated. A four-lane divided NY 695 extension from Fairmount to Nedrow would be ideal.

I've basically concluded that through traffic, including trucks, will try to use the boulevard because it's "only a mile", not realizing that there will be upwards of a dozen signals and poor (relatively speaking) connectivity to I-690. I can tell you right now, when this project is complete and I'm passing through on a trip, I am going to try the boulevard at least a few times, and I'll bet you most others will do the same thing. I submitted two comments online basically restating what I've said here; I'm interested to see if they'll be addressed, but not optimistic that anything will become of them.

[Rothman]

Nothing will change with Hochul.

People taking the grid will also need to think in 3D as the I-690 ramps will be on Crouse and Irving, offset from Almond, on the shoulder of University Hill.

[Alps]

Nothing will change with Hochul.

People taking the grid will also need to think in 3D as the I-690 ramps will be on Crouse and Irving, offset from Almond, on the shoulder of University Hill.

I don't think anyone is going to be as bullish in the infrastructure field as Cuomo was, so why do you assert nothing will change?

[Plutonic Panda]

Nothing will change with Hochul.

People taking the grid will also need to think in 3D as the I-690 ramps will be on Crouse and Irving, offset from Almond, on the shoulder of University Hill.

I don't think anyone is going to be as bullish in the infrastructure field as Cuomo was, so why do you assert nothing will change?

Because for whatever reason he/she has made it clear they want the grid option and hope it becomes a reality. That's my guess.

[Rothman]

Nothing will change with Hochul.

People taking the grid will also need to think in 3D as the I-690 ramps will be on Crouse and Irving, offset from Almond, on the shoulder of University Hill.

I don't think anyone is going to be as bullish in the infrastructure field as Cuomo was, so why do you assert nothing will change?

Because for whatever reason he/she has made it clear they want the grid option and hope it becomes a reality. That's my guess.

Because the plan is set.  Hochul won't rock the boat.

[Plutonic Panda]

Nothing will change with Hochul.

People taking the grid will also need to think in 3D as the I-690 ramps will be on Crouse and Irving, offset from Almond, on the shoulder of University Hill.

I don't think anyone is going to be as bullish in the infrastructure field as Cuomo was, so why do you assert nothing will change?

Because for whatever reason he/she has made it clear they want the grid option and hope it becomes a reality. That's my guess.

Because the plan is set.  Hochul won't rock the boat.

It's a plan. Drawings on paper. The viaduct still stands and is used by thousands every day. Scrap the plan and come up with a new one because the current one sucks.