News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Interstate 81 in Syracuse

Started by The Ghostbuster, May 25, 2016, 03:37:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

kalvado

Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 02:43:45 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 29, 2017, 02:36:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 02:26:20 PM
"nearly $2 billion project to fund (projected I-81 cost)" -- where is the official estimate that it would cost that to rebuild or replace that viaduct on its current alignment.
I'm afraid you missed it - and information is somewhere way upstream by now:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/repository/2016_OpenHouse_DRAFT_oct5_Rev.pdf
There are cost estimates, reasoning why certain things are not considered etc.

Those are major freeway realignment alternatives, with large scale urban right-of-way acquisitions, where such costs are quite conceivable.

If I lived there, I would most likely oppose such a project, for both cost issues and environmental impact issues.

Again -- rebuild or replace that 0.9 mile viaduct on its current alignment.  No new right-of-way acquisition.
Existing road is not up to standards with sharp curves and 45 MPH speed limit. I believe there was something else...  As far as I understand, FHWA will not allow NYSDOT to grandfather in  that type of road for new project. That makes federal funding unavailable for the project, and rebuild as-is option becomes more expensive than most alternatives.


Beltway

#201
Quote from: kalvado on October 29, 2017, 02:57:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 02:43:45 PM
Those are major freeway realignment alternatives, with large scale urban right-of-way acquisitions, where such costs are quite conceivable.
If I lived there, I would most likely oppose such a project, for both cost issues and environmental impact issues.
Again -- rebuild or replace that 0.9 mile viaduct on its current alignment.  No new right-of-way acquisition.
Existing road is not up to standards with sharp curves and 45 MPH speed limit. I believe there was something else...  As far as I understand, FHWA will not allow NYSDOT to grandfather in  that type of road for new project. That makes federal funding unavailable for the project, and rebuild as-is option becomes more expensive than most alternatives.

That would be a first, for FHWA to refuse to help fund a bridge rebuild project on a toll-free Interstate highway built after the 1956 FAHA, when the alternative is to either close the bridge, or to realign the highway and incur massive urban right-of-way impacts.


Edit:  I just got promoted from Expressway to Turnpike!
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

kalvado

adding a bit more
https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/repository/I-81Corridor-Study.pdf
Quote
highways in the primary study area have a relatively high rate of accidents when compared to statewide averages.
....
The northbound viaduct section of I-81 has an accident rate more than three times the statewide average.
I-81 through the I-690 interchange has sections where the accident rates reach five times the statewide average

Beltway

Quote from: kalvado on October 29, 2017, 03:06:44 PM
adding a bit more
https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/repository/I-81Corridor-Study.pdf
Quote
highways in the primary study area have a relatively high rate of accidents when compared to statewide averages.
....
The northbound viaduct section of I-81 has an accident rate more than three times the statewide average.
I-81 through the I-690 interchange has sections where the accident rates reach five times the statewide average

What sort of remedial treatments have been proposed to address the accident problems?

(Aside from closing the highway or realigning the highway and incurring massive urban right-of-way impacts).
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

vdeane

Quote from: Beltway on October 28, 2017, 12:03:07 PM
The state can't let MPOs be the sole arbiter of how to maintain Interstate highways.
Considering that the MPO process is mandated by federal law for metro areas with more than 50,000 people, I don't see how the state could affect that.  Especially since there isn't an individual pot of money just for interstate any more; it's now one eligible expenditure part of a larger program, for which many local projects are eligible.

Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 03:05:32 PM
That would be a first, for FHWA to refuse to help fund a bridge rebuild project on a toll-free Interstate highway built after the 1956 FAHA, when the alternative is to either close the bridge, or to realign the highway and incur massive urban right-of-way impacts.
The issue is that, as a replacement, it counts as "new infrastructure".  Never mind that there is a bridge there now.  And new infrastructure is required to meet current standards.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

kalvado

Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 03:14:48 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 29, 2017, 03:06:44 PM
adding a bit more
https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/repository/I-81Corridor-Study.pdf
Quote
highways in the primary study area have a relatively high rate of accidents when compared to statewide averages.
....
The northbound viaduct section of I-81 has an accident rate more than three times the statewide average.
I-81 through the I-690 interchange has sections where the accident rates reach five times the statewide average

What sort of remedial treatments have been proposed to address the accident problems?

(Aside from closing the highway or realigning the highway and incurring massive urban right-of-way impacts).
Feel free to review documents linked above. DOT considered about 8 options total.

Beltway

Quote from: vdeane on October 29, 2017, 03:17:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 28, 2017, 12:03:07 PM
The state can't let MPOs be the sole arbiter of how to maintain Interstate highways.
Considering that the MPO process is mandated by federal law for metro areas with more than 50,000 people, I don't see how the state could affect that.  Especially since there isn't an individual pot of money just for interstate any more; it's now one eligible expenditure part of a larger program, for which many local projects are eligible.

If an Interstate highway needs critical maintenance then an MPO should not be allowed to stand in the way of that.  Of course their concurrence should be obtained, but I would hope that they would take a reasonable approach.  Mainline Interstate highways impact motorists and commercial operators far beyond the area of their MPO region.

FWIW, in an extreme case a state could disband an irresponsible MPO and then reconstitute it.  I don't know if this has yet happened, but there are limits on their power.

Quote from: vdeane on October 29, 2017, 03:17:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 03:05:32 PM
That would be a first, for FHWA to refuse to help fund a bridge rebuild project on a toll-free Interstate highway built after the 1956 FAHA, when the alternative is to either close the bridge, or to realign the highway and incur massive urban right-of-way impacts.
The issue is that, as a replacement, it counts as "new infrastructure".  Never mind that there is a bridge there now.  And new infrastructure is required to meet current standards.

Not in my 43 years of working for state DOTs did I ever hear that a maintenance replacement project counts with FHWA as "new infrastructure".  There are also design exceptions provided on some projects, and FHWA does provide them.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Beltway

Quote from: kalvado on October 29, 2017, 04:38:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 03:14:48 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 29, 2017, 03:06:44 PM
adding a bit more
https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/repository/I-81Corridor-Study.pdf
Quote
highways in the primary study area have a relatively high rate of accidents when compared to statewide averages.
....
The northbound viaduct section of I-81 has an accident rate more than three times the statewide average.
I-81 through the I-690 interchange has sections where the accident rates reach five times the statewide average
What sort of remedial treatments have been proposed to address the accident problems?
(Aside from closing the highway or realigning the highway and incurring massive urban right-of-way impacts).
Feel free to review documents linked above. DOT considered about 8 options total.

I don't see any option for safety improvements to the existing I-81 alignment.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Rothman

#208
Your ideas of what should happen conflict with reality and how the federal aid process actually works in urban areas.  It doesn't matter what you think the role of the MPOs should be.  They have their actual role and you seem to not even understand that NYSDOT holds a seat in the MPO and how that seat works (differs greatly by MPO in NY).

Your ideas are therefore moot in regards to how the I-81 viaduct will actually progress and be addressed.  This thread is for what is actually happening.  You should post your own thread in some other place about how you think things should function, but never will.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

froggie

Quote from: BeltwayI don't see any option for safety improvements to the existing I-81 alignment.

What do you think the Viaduct replacement option is?  It's been determined that it has to go....I know from personal experience that the substructure and piers are in poor shape and rehab isn't an option.  Adding shoulders is an obvious safety improvement but would expand the width of the viaduct.  Taking out the nasty weaves between Harrison and 690 is an obvious safety improvement but can't be done without additional right-of-way.  Likewise with the 45 MPH curves and the lane drop along southbound 81 (SB 81 has only a single through lane).

Please point out which safety improvements you think could/should happen that won't break the bank or require additional width.

Beltway

#210
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2017, 09:04:00 PM
Your ideas of what should happen conflict with reality and how the federal aid process actually works in urban areas.  It doesn't matter what you think the role of the MPOs should be.  They have their actual role and you seem to not even understand that NYSDOT holds a seat in the MPO and how that seat works (differs greatly by MPO in NY).
Your ideas are therefore moot in regards to how the I-81 viaduct will actually progress and be addressed.  This thread is for what is actually happening.  You should post your own thread in some other place about how you think things should function, but never will.

I have friends in the Buffalo area that I have been visiting several times a year since 2008.  Some have been trying to persuade me to move there post-retirement.

The overall handling of this project and its implications on how the state handles things, is yet another reason why I don't want to live there.

The possible removal of a segment of mainline Interstate highway, has national implications as well, and that is the reason why I care about it.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

cl94

Quote from: froggie on October 29, 2017, 09:47:23 PM
Quote from: BeltwayI don't see any option for safety improvements to the existing I-81 alignment.

What do you think the Viaduct replacement option is?  It's been determined that it has to go....I know from personal experience that the substructure and piers are in poor shape and rehab isn't an option.  Adding shoulders is an obvious safety improvement but would expand the width of the viaduct.  Taking out the nasty weaves between Harrison and 690 is an obvious safety improvement but can't be done without additional right-of-way.  Likewise with the 45 MPH curves and the lane drop along southbound 81 (SB 81 has only a single through lane).

Please point out which safety improvements you think could/should happen that won't break the bank or require additional width.

This wins the thread.

I-81 in Syracuse is probably the most substandard section of expressway Upstate. Inspection reports have shown that the structure is in miserable shape and it is behind salvage. And then you have the SB death merge where the two heaviest movements (I-81 mainline and 690 EB - 81 SB) get reduced from 3 lanes to 1. Something needs to be done and nothing can be done in the same spot without additional width and/or removing local access.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Rothman

Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 10:10:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2017, 09:04:00 PM
Your ideas of what should happen conflict with reality and how the federal aid process actually works in urban areas.  It doesn't matter what you think the role of the MPOs should be.  They have their actual role and you seem to not even understand that NYSDOT holds a seat in the MPO and how that seat works (differs greatly by MPO in NY).
Your ideas are therefore moot in regards to how the I-81 viaduct will actually progress and be addressed.  This thread is for what is actually happening.  You should post your own thread in some other place about how you think things should function, but never will.

I have friends in the Buffalo area that I have been visiting several times a year since 2008.  Some have been trying to persuade me to move there post-retirement.

The overall handling of this project and its implications on how the state handles things, is yet another reason why I don't want to live there.

The possible removal of a segment of mainline Interstate highway, has national implications as well, and that is the reason why I care about it.

You're not comprehending what I'm saying, or are just being deliberately non-responsive.  You're just filling this thread with what you think should happen, when there is what is already going to happen and how it is
Quote from: cl94 on October 29, 2017, 10:17:26 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 29, 2017, 09:47:23 PM
Quote from: BeltwayI don't see any option for safety improvements to the existing I-81 alignment.

What do you think the Viaduct replacement option is?  It's been determined that it has to go....I know from personal experience that the substructure and piers are in poor shape and rehab isn't an option.  Adding shoulders is an obvious safety improvement but would expand the width of the viaduct.  Taking out the nasty weaves between Harrison and 690 is an obvious safety improvement but can't be done without additional right-of-way.  Likewise with the 45 MPH curves and the lane drop along southbound 81 (SB 81 has only a single through lane).

Please point out which safety improvements you think could/should happen that won't break the bank or require additional width.

This wins the thread.

I-81 in Syracuse is probably the most substandard section of expressway Upstate. Inspection reports have shown that the structure is in miserable shape and it is behind salvage. And then you have the SB death merge where the two heaviest movements (I-81 mainline and 690 EB - 81 SB) get reduced from 3 lanes to 1. Something needs to be done and nothing can be done in the same spot without additional width and/or removing local access.

All the recent discussion has centered on correcting Beltway's warped views of the scope of the project, the funding of it and the management of it.  I don't think we're getting through to him.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Beltway

Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2017, 10:27:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 10:10:47 PM
The possible removal of a segment of mainline Interstate highway, has national implications as well, and that is the reason why I care about it.
You're not comprehending what I'm saying, or are just being deliberately non-responsive.  You're just filling this thread with what you think should happen, when there is what is already going to happen and how it is

I just now read thru the whole thread, and there is a lot of discussion back and forth about various options, the boulevard, the viaduct replacement or realignment, or a tunnel.  I don't see any definite conclusion about how to proceed.  I don't see any posted official announcements about what option has been selected or is even preferred at this time.  You can fill me in if you don't think I read it correctly.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

kalvado

Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 11:05:42 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2017, 10:27:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2017, 10:10:47 PM
The possible removal of a segment of mainline Interstate highway, has national implications as well, and that is the reason why I care about it.
You're not comprehending what I'm saying, or are just being deliberately non-responsive.  You're just filling this thread with what you think should happen, when there is what is already going to happen and how it is

I just now read thru the whole thread, and there is a lot of discussion back and forth about various options, the boulevard, the viaduct replacement or realignment, or a tunnel.  I don't see any definite conclusion about how to proceed.  I don't see any posted official announcements about what option has been selected or is even preferred at this time.  You can fill me in if you don't think I read it correctly.
And that is the key question.
My bet it will end up with governor flipping the coin. Heads - a new study will be ordered. Tails - an additional review of old studies will be held. Landing on a rim means community grid.  Floating away in thin air - viaduct. Alliens stealing coin in flight - tunnel.

Rothman

That's fine that the thread discussed all the options that were being considered.  However, as was just pointed out, the only options still on the table are the community grid alternative or replacing the viaduct for the costs mentioned in the NYSDOT .pdf.  All other ideas are no longer officially considered.

My personal bet:  The thing will be replaced.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

kalvado

Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 07:42:40 AM
That's fine that the thread discussed all the options that were being considered.  However, as was just pointed out, the only options still on the table are the community grid alternative or replacing the viaduct for the costs mentioned in the NYSDOT .pdf.  All other ideas are no longer officially considered.

My personal bet:  The thing will be replaced.
With Cuomo II committing to numerous transportation projects - Tappan Zee, La Guardia, Penn station, NYC bus terminal - the big question is if anything would happen before old viaduct collapses, or all funds are already spent...

Rothman



Quote from: kalvado on October 30, 2017, 08:26:36 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 07:42:40 AM
That's fine that the thread discussed all the options that were being considered.  However, as was just pointed out, the only options still on the table are the community grid alternative or replacing the viaduct for the costs mentioned in the NYSDOT .pdf.  All other ideas are no longer officially considered.

My personal bet:  The thing will be replaced.
With Cuomo II committing to numerous transportation projects - Tappan Zee, La Guardia, Penn station, NYC bus terminal - the big question is if anything would happen before old viaduct collapses, or all funds are already spent...

I don't think that is the big question.  The big question is what are the consequences of the funding mechanisms chosen for the projects.  They will all get done, but what is NY doing to the amount of its state debt and flexibility to use federal funds, when it may be pushing closer to its AC limit or limiting the remaining state funds after debt service that could be used to first instance federal funding.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

kalvado

Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 11:20:14 AM


Quote from: kalvado on October 30, 2017, 08:26:36 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 07:42:40 AM
That's fine that the thread discussed all the options that were being considered.  However, as was just pointed out, the only options still on the table are the community grid alternative or replacing the viaduct for the costs mentioned in the NYSDOT .pdf.  All other ideas are no longer officially considered.

My personal bet:  The thing will be replaced.
With Cuomo II committing to numerous transportation projects - Tappan Zee, La Guardia, Penn station, NYC bus terminal - the big question is if anything would happen before old viaduct collapses, or all funds are already spent...

I don't think that is the big question.  The big question is what are the consequences of the funding mechanisms chosen for the projects.  They will all get done, but what is NY doing to the amount of its state debt and flexibility to use federal funds, when it may be pushing closer to its AC limit or limiting the remaining state funds after debt service that could be used to first instance federal funding.

(personal opinion emphasized)
AC limit -?

Beltway

#219
Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 07:42:40 AM
That's fine that the thread discussed all the options that were being considered.  However, as was just pointed out, the only options still on the table are the community grid alternative or replacing the viaduct for the costs mentioned in the NYSDOT .pdf.  All other ideas are no longer officially considered.
My personal bet:  The thing will be replaced.

Depends on which official body.  Per that document, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement has not yet been completed.  That means that FHWA has not yet approved the document that has a set of alternatives under consideration, which means that the FHWA has not yet agreed.  The NEPA process on this project still has a long ways to go.  Normally a set of public hearings follow the approval of a DEIS.  Then a Final EIS which contains the selected alternative is prepared by the project team, and a Record of Decision, and these need to be approved by the FHWA.  Only after the NEPA process is complete can the project be built.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

cl94

Quote from: Beltway on October 30, 2017, 11:35:26 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 07:42:40 AM
That's fine that the thread discussed all the options that were being considered.  However, as was just pointed out, the only options still on the table are the community grid alternative or replacing the viaduct for the costs mentioned in the NYSDOT .pdf.  All other ideas are no longer officially considered.
My personal bet:  The thing will be replaced.

Depends on which official body.  Per that document, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement has not yet been completed.  That means that FHWA has not yet approved the document that has a set of alternatives under consideration, which means that the FHWA has not yet agreed.  The NEPA process on this project still has a long ways to go.  Normally a set of public hearings follow the approval of a DEIS.  Then a Final EIS which contains the selected alternative is prepared by the project team, and a Record of Decision, and these need to be approved by the FHWA.  Only after the NEPA process is complete can the project be built.

You don't understand. NYSDOT and the MPO have already given the thumbs-down to all but replace and community grid due to cost. Tunnel will be insanely expensive, especially with the region's geography. FHWA doesn't have a huge say in the alternative process outside of the MPO. I know that because I worked at an MPO during undergrad. A couple of the other people in this thread are at the NYSDOT head office. We're down to 2 alternatives and that is final.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Beltway

Quote from: cl94 on October 30, 2017, 11:54:26 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 30, 2017, 11:35:26 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 07:42:40 AM
That's fine that the thread discussed all the options that were being considered.  However, as was just pointed out, the only options still on the table are the community grid alternative or replacing the viaduct for the costs mentioned in the NYSDOT .pdf.  All other ideas are no longer officially considered.
My personal bet:  The thing will be replaced.
Depends on which official body.  Per that document, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement has not yet been completed.  That means that FHWA has not yet approved the document that has a set of alternatives under consideration, which means that the FHWA has not yet agreed.  The NEPA process on this project still has a long ways to go.  Normally a set of public hearings follow the approval of a DEIS.  Then a Final EIS which contains the selected alternative is prepared by the project team, and a Record of Decision, and these need to be approved by the FHWA.  Only after the NEPA process is complete can the project be built.
You don't understand. NYSDOT and the MPO have already given the thumbs-down to all but replace and community grid due to cost. Tunnel will be insanely expensive, especially with the region's geography. FHWA doesn't have a huge say in the alternative process outside of the MPO. I know that because I worked at an MPO during undergrad. A couple of the other people in this thread are at the NYSDOT head office. We're down to 2 alternatives and that is final.

You don't understand.  The FHWA could refuse to approve the DEIS. The FHWA could refuse to provide federal funding for anything on this project.  Not saying that they will or that they should, but it is possible if they don't agree with the process.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Rothman



Quote from: Beltway on October 30, 2017, 12:00:01 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 30, 2017, 11:54:26 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 30, 2017, 11:35:26 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 07:42:40 AM
That's fine that the thread discussed all the options that were being considered.  However, as was just pointed out, the only options still on the table are the community grid alternative or replacing the viaduct for the costs mentioned in the NYSDOT .pdf.  All other ideas are no longer officially considered.
My personal bet:  The thing will be replaced.
Depends on which official body.  Per that document, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement has not yet been completed.  That means that FHWA has not yet approved the document that has a set of alternatives under consideration, which means that the FHWA has not yet agreed.  The NEPA process on this project still has a long ways to go.  Normally a set of public hearings follow the approval of a DEIS.  Then a Final EIS which contains the selected alternative is prepared by the project team, and a Record of Decision, and these need to be approved by the FHWA.  Only after the NEPA process is complete can the project be built.
You don't understand. NYSDOT and the MPO have already given the thumbs-down to all but replace and community grid due to cost. Tunnel will be insanely expensive, especially with the region's geography. FHWA doesn't have a huge say in the alternative process outside of the MPO. I know that because I worked at an MPO during undergrad. A couple of the other people in this thread are at the NYSDOT head office. We're down to 2 alternatives and that is final.

You don't understand.  The FHWA could refuse to approve the DEIS. The FHWA could refuse to provide federal funding for anything on this project.  Not saying that they will or that they should, but it is possible if they don't agree with the process.

No, you really don't understand, despite your constant claim to the contrary.  Whatever options will go to FHWA, they will be the grid or the viaduct.  Even if FHWA rejects the DEIS or any other design document (highly unlikely for a wholesale rejection), NYSDOT and SMTC will come back with a revised document for the option they want in the end.

The process will just be tweaked as required and run through.  There is no question of federal funding eligibility in this situation, so FHWA cannot deny funding on that regard.  This thing just won't go in as a viaduct replacement and come out a tunnel or some other totally different project, as you imply.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Beltway

Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 12:19:20 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 30, 2017, 12:00:01 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 30, 2017, 11:54:26 AM
You don't understand. NYSDOT and the MPO have already given the thumbs-down to all but replace and community grid due to cost. Tunnel will be insanely expensive, especially with the region's geography. FHWA doesn't have a huge say in the alternative process outside of the MPO. I know that because I worked at an MPO during undergrad. A couple of the other people in this thread are at the NYSDOT head office. We're down to 2 alternatives and that is final.
You don't understand.  The FHWA could refuse to approve the DEIS. The FHWA could refuse to provide federal funding for anything on this project.  Not saying that they will or that they should, but it is possible if they don't agree with the process.
No, you really don't understand, despite your constant claim to the contrary.  Whatever options will go to FHWA, they will be the grid or the viaduct.  Even if FHWA rejects the DEIS or any other design document (highly unlikely for a wholesale rejection), NYSDOT and SMTC will come back with a revised document for the option they want in the end.
The process will just be tweaked as required and run through.  There is no question of federal funding eligibility in this situation, so FHWA cannot deny funding on that regard.  This thing just won't go in as a viaduct replacement and come out a tunnel or some other totally different project, as you imply.

I imply nothing of the sort.  My point is that FHWA and USDOT has ways to affect the outcome of a federally-aided project.  What I object to is your attempts to shut down or limit discussion about the project.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Rothman



Quote from: Beltway on October 30, 2017, 12:26:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2017, 12:19:20 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 30, 2017, 12:00:01 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 30, 2017, 11:54:26 AM
You don't understand. NYSDOT and the MPO have already given the thumbs-down to all but replace and community grid due to cost. Tunnel will be insanely expensive, especially with the region's geography. FHWA doesn't have a huge say in the alternative process outside of the MPO. I know that because I worked at an MPO during undergrad. A couple of the other people in this thread are at the NYSDOT head office. We're down to 2 alternatives and that is final.
You don't understand.  The FHWA could refuse to approve the DEIS. The FHWA could refuse to provide federal funding for anything on this project.  Not saying that they will or that they should, but it is possible if they don't agree with the process.
No, you really don't understand, despite your constant claim to the contrary.  Whatever options will go to FHWA, they will be the grid or the viaduct.  Even if FHWA rejects the DEIS or any other design document (highly unlikely for a wholesale rejection), NYSDOT and SMTC will come back with a revised document for the option they want in the end.
The process will just be tweaked as required and run through.  There is no question of federal funding eligibility in this situation, so FHWA cannot deny funding on that regard.  This thing just won't go in as a viaduct replacement and come out a tunnel or some other totally different project, as you imply.

I imply nothing of the sort.  My point is that FHWA and USDOT has ways to affect the outcome of a federally-aided project.  What I object to is your attempts to shut down or limit discussion about the project.

I only wish to limit the discussion by limiting inappropriate speculation, especially when it is based upon a misunderstanding of how transportation projects are funded.

Your response to my post -- in which I confirmed the fact that the only options still viable are the grid and replacement -- made the dubious argument that FHWA could reject everything until an alternative that they prefer comes their way.  That is just a warped and inaccurate view of FHWA's role.  They ensure NEPA and design processes are compliant with regulation and that projects are eligible for funding, but they don't get into picking the actual alternative and vetoing the state in that regard.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.