Interstate 81 in Syracuse

[ixnay]

Of course, Canada or Rochester traffic to the mall is not affected by reroute; but southern suburbs and Cornell (out of state money!) are. Well, Amazon is there to pick up the slack, after all.

Amazon has a major Syracuse presence?  Where?

ixnay

http://amazon.com
Check it out, if you didn't yet - they sell anything you may ever need!

I've bought a couple of books from there a few years ago.  That's about the extent of my dealings with Amazon.  I prefer QVC.  (I like Amazon's logo, though.)

My question was whether Syracuse had a Middletown, DE-like Amazon facility that most don't know about.  I see where you're coming from, now, kalvado.

ixnay

[kalvado]

Of course, Canada or Rochester traffic to the mall is not affected by reroute; but southern suburbs and Cornell (out of state money!) are. Well, Amazon is there to pick up the slack, after all.

Amazon has a major Syracuse presence?  Where?

ixnay

http://amazon.com
Check it out, if you didn't yet - they sell anything you may ever need!

I've bought a couple of books from there a few years ago.  That's about the extent of my dealings with Amazon.  I prefer QVC.  (I like Amazon's logo, though.)

My question was whether Syracuse had a Middletown, DE-like Amazon facility that most don't know about.  I see where you're coming from, now, kalvado.

ixnay

Amazon distribution facility being built near Albany NY is said to be the first one in upstate.
But my message is indeed that retail is listed as endangered species these days, and if I-81 can become the last straw for the mall is anyone's guess.
Mall's management opinion is not the only one to be heard, but they are a legitimate stakeholder from my perspective.

[vdeane]

The upside to this is that what is now I-481 is already available for a potential I-81 reroute, and that there wouldn't be much difference in its overall length (11.18 miles in its current form, and 15.08 as proposed). I'm just hoping we don't get another Greensboro situation, where residents were complaining about I-40 when it was rerouted, and that ultimately forced it to return to its former route.

That works for north-south traffic going through Syracuse - I-481 is only 3 minutes longer (though IMO it's less interesting and the traffic is not fun).  However, things are much worse for traffic traveling between the west and south (Binghamton/Cortland/PA to the State Fair, Syracuse western suburbs, northern Finger Lakes, much of Lake Ontario, Rochester via the fastest route, etc.) that currently takes I-81 and I-690 to the Thruway.  Here's a comparison of trips from south of exit 16A to west of exit 39:

Existing route (I-81/I-690/I-90): 14.3 miles/15 minutes
I-481/I-690/I-90: 22.5 miles/22 minutes
I-481/I-90: 24.6 miles/23 minutes

It's a much bigger difference.  I'd have a much more favorable opinion of the community grid if the western bypass had been built (which I'd number I-681).

(personal opinion)

If Interstate 481 becomes 81, I assume NY 481 would retain its existing designation since there is already a NY 81 between Rensselaerville and Coxsackie.

Why would NY 481 change even if NY 81 didn't exist?  It's not like I-81 north of there to Canada is being renumbered.  The state route extensions of interstates are just that: extensions, not spurs.  The only one that's technically a spur is NY 787... and the part of I-787 heading towards Troy was once planned to become part of I-88 and is only signed southbound.

[Alps]

If Interstate 481 becomes 81, I assume NY 481 would retain its existing designation since there is already a NY 81 between Rensselaerville and Coxsackie.

Why would NY 481 change even if NY 81 didn't exist?  It's not like I-81 north of there to Canada is being renumbered.  The state route extensions of interstates are just that: extensions, not spurs.  The only one that's technically a spur is NY 787... and the part of I-787 heading towards Troy was once planned to become part of I-88 and is only signed southbound.

Isn't NY 690 technically a spur off I-690?

[TonyTrafficLight]

Of course, Canada or Rochester traffic to the mall is not affected by reroute; but southern suburbs and Cornell (out of state money!) are. Well, Amazon is there to pick up the slack, after all.

Amazon has a major Syracuse presence?  Where?

ixnay

http://amazon.com
Check it out, if you didn't yet - they sell anything you may ever need!

I've bought a couple of books from there a few years ago.  That's about the extent of my dealings with Amazon.  I prefer QVC.  (I like Amazon's logo, though.)

My question was whether Syracuse had a Middletown, DE-like Amazon facility that most don't know about.  I see where you're coming from, now, kalvado.

ixnay

Rumor has it, this warehouse that may be built in Liverpool, NY will be for Amazon. At almost 4 million square feet, probably is.

https://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/who-wants-to-build-a-huge-warehouse-in-clay/

[vdeane]

If Interstate 481 becomes 81, I assume NY 481 would retain its existing designation since there is already a NY 81 between Rensselaerville and Coxsackie.

Why would NY 481 change even if NY 81 didn't exist?  It's not like I-81 north of there to Canada is being renumbered.  The state route extensions of interstates are just that: extensions, not spurs.  The only one that's technically a spur is NY 787... and the part of I-787 heading towards Troy was once planned to become part of I-88 and is only signed southbound.

Isn't NY 690 technically a spur off I-690?

Really technically (same for NY 890), but there's even less signage (none) than for I-787 in both cases.  You can't even see this in the Functional Class Viewer because all the other Thruway/interstate interchanges are classed as interstates too because of the ramps.

[The Ghostbuster]

In response to the comment that the viaduct will go back up when the "community grid" proves to be insufficient, I think that is wishful thinking. Like anywhere else in the world, once a freeway is torn down, it is gone forever! Syracuse will be stuck with the community grid permanently.

[sprjus4]

In response to the comment that the viaduct will go back up when the "community grid" proves to be insufficient, I think that is wishful thinking. Like anywhere else in the world, once a freeway is torn down, it is gone forever! Syracuse will be stuck with the community grid permanently.

It's more of a joke in reference to how I-40 in Greensboro, North Carolina was routed onto the new freeway bypass but then routed back on the old alignment a few years later. At least in that case though, they never tore down the original freeway.

[tolbs17]

I hate it when freeways get torn down... Freeways relief traffic congestion!

[SGwithADD]

The upside to this is that what is now I-481 is already available for a potential I-81 reroute, and that there wouldn't be much difference in its overall length (11.18 miles in its current form, and 15.08 as proposed). I'm just hoping we don't get another Greensboro situation, where residents were complaining about I-40 when it was rerouted, and that ultimately forced it to return to its former route.

That works for north-south traffic going through Syracuse - I-481 is only 3 minutes longer (though IMO it's less interesting and the traffic is not fun).  However, things are much worse for traffic traveling between the west and south (Binghamton/Cortland/PA to the State Fair, Syracuse western suburbs, northern Finger Lakes, much of Lake Ontario, Rochester via the fastest route, etc.) that currently takes I-81 and I-690 to the Thruway.  Here's a comparison of trips from south of exit 16A to west of exit 39:

Existing route (I-81/I-690/I-90): 14.3 miles/15 minutes
I-481/I-690/I-90: 22.5 miles/22 minutes
I-481/I-90: 24.6 miles/23 minutes

It's a much bigger difference.  I'd have a much more favorable opinion of the community grid if the western bypass had been built (which I'd number I-681).

(personal opinion)

Similarly, it's another 9.0 miles/8 minutes to go from 16A to the SYR airport using I-481 instead of I-81.  This has become more important recently for folks in the Binghamton area, as ever since American and United pulled out of BGM, many people drive up to SYR for flights on those airlines (and for overall cheaper fares).

[froggie]

I hate it when freeways get torn down... Freeways relief traffic congestion!

They also have a history of creating traffic congestion.  Consider that dichotomy.

[Plutonic Panda]

I hate it when freeways get torn down... Freeways relief traffic congestion!

They also have a history of creating traffic congestion.  Consider that dichotomy.

I suppose you are playing devils advocate but saying freeways create congestion is a non-statement, IMO. I mean the obvious is out there and ones definition of success would likely be something that is popular or used a lot. A victim of its own success certainly applies here. So the urbanists would love to just give up so people are either forced to take transit or suffer nightmare congestion. Where freeways aren't widened traffic still increases and never have I seen a no build alt. factored in whenever an induced demand argument is made when people whine about freeways being jammed that were just widened.

[sprjus4]

I hate it when freeways get torn down... Freeways relief traffic congestion!

They also have a history of creating traffic congestion.  Consider that dichotomy.

Traffic on I-481 would be significantly worse if I-81 was demolished.

[tolbs17]

It's also like saying that you want I-275 demolished and I-4 traffic would be way worse in Florida. It does make room for more development, but it's better to demolish buildings that are too close to the main highway.

[webny99]

I hate it when freeways get torn down... Freeways relief traffic congestion!

They also have a history of creating traffic congestion.  Consider that dichotomy.

Making it easier to travel, releasing suppressed demand, and causing volumes to rise, isn't the same thing as creating "congestion".
Overall congestion always or almost always improves with freeway construction. I can't even come up with any counter-examples.

Traffic on I-481 would be significantly worse if I-81 was demolished.

And the Thruway. And in downtown Syracuse.
The overall movement of people and goods within and through Syracuse will get worse in pretty much every possible way.
I can't think of one single part of the Syracuse area where the residents won't see drastically increased travel times and longer commutes. Origin and destination are almost irrelevant; it will occur across the board.
Further, making almost every major destination (including Destiny, SU, the airport, and the State Fair) less accessible will add to this effect and stifle the already struggling economy.

[Beltway]

Traffic on I-481 would be significantly worse if I-81 was demolished.

And the Thruway. And in downtown Syracuse.
The overall movement of people and goods within and through Syracuse will get worse in pretty much every possible way.
I can't think of one single part of the Syracuse area where the residents won't see drastically increased travel times and longer commutes. Origin and destination are almost irrelevant; it will occur across the board.
Further, making almost every major destination (including Destiny, SU, the airport, and the State Fair) less accessible will add to this effect and stifle the already struggling economy.

$1.9 billon to dismantle it, and $2.2 billion to replace it and rebuild the interchange.

What a waste.

[kalvado]

Traffic on I-481 would be significantly worse if I-81 was demolished.

And the Thruway. And in downtown Syracuse.
The overall movement of people and goods within and through Syracuse will get worse in pretty much every possible way.
I can't think of one single part of the Syracuse area where the residents won't see drastically increased travel times and longer commutes. Origin and destination are almost irrelevant; it will occur across the board.
Further, making almost every major destination (including Destiny, SU, the airport, and the State Fair) less accessible will add to this effect and stifle the already struggling economy.

$1.9 billon to dismantle it, and $2.2 billion to replace it and rebuild the interchange.

What a waste.

We talked about it a lot - rebuild as-is would be relatively easy; but this is a 4-lane highway which needs 6 lanes - and may need an upgrade to 8, with no ROW and even no proper shoulders, curves requiring 45 MPH limit... And not  easy to navigate if you're not local...

[froggie]

Making it easier to travel, releasing suppressed demand, and causing volumes to rise, isn't the same thing as creating "congestion".

Look up induced demand.  Despite some naysayers on this forum, it is a well-documented outcome.  New roadway construction doesn't just shift traffic over from other facilities, it entices (induces) new trips to be taken...and this is where your congestion often comes into play.  Perhaps not right away but it won't take long especially if there's already latent (i.e. unmet) demand in a given region.

There have also been cases where new freeway facilities got overwhelmed simply from the volume of traffic that was shifted over from other locations.  You can argue semantics all you want about whether that's "congestion" but the bottom line is that the congestion wasn't reduced overall and you're simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.

And this is to say nothing about the environmental, societal, and financial costs of freeway construction in heavily built up or environmentally sensitive (thinking wetlands specifically here) areas.  I'm not necessarily saying a given project shouldn't be done, but the costs of such need to be fully weighed against the benefits.  Far too often, freeway promoters ignored the full costs of construction....this is in no small part what led rise to the freeway revolts of the '60s and '70s, because the highwaymen thought they could simply bulldoze over the opposition (pun intended).

[hotdogPi]

Making it easier to travel, releasing suppressed demand, and causing volumes to rise, isn't the same thing as creating "congestion".

Look up induced demand.  Despite some naysayers on this forum, it is a well-documented outcome.  New roadway construction doesn't just shift traffic over from other facilities, it entices (induces) new trips to be taken...and this is where your congestion often comes into play.  Perhaps not right away but it won't take long especially if there's already latent (i.e. unmet) demand in a given region.

There have also been cases where new freeway facilities got overwhelmed simply from the volume of traffic that was shifted over from other locations.  You can argue semantics all you want about whether that's "congestion" but the bottom line is that the congestion wasn't reduced overall and you're simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.

And this is to say nothing about the environmental, societal, and financial costs of freeway construction in heavily built up or environmentally sensitive (thinking wetlands specifically here) areas.  I'm not necessarily saying a given project shouldn't be done, but the costs of such need to be fully weighed against the benefits.  Far too often, freeway promoters ignored the full costs of construction....this is in no small part what led rise to the freeway revolts of the '60s and '70s, because the highwaymen thought they could simply bulldoze over the opposition (pun intended).

Upstate New York isn't growing much.

[kalvado]

Making it easier to travel, releasing suppressed demand, and causing volumes to rise, isn't the same thing as creating "congestion".

Look up induced demand.  Despite some naysayers on this forum, it is a well-documented outcome.  New roadway construction doesn't just shift traffic over from other facilities, it entices (induces) new trips to be taken...and this is where your congestion often comes into play.  Perhaps not right away but it won't take long especially if there's already latent (i.e. unmet) demand in a given region.

There have also been cases where new freeway facilities got overwhelmed simply from the volume of traffic that was shifted over from other locations.  You can argue semantics all you want about whether that's "congestion" but the bottom line is that the congestion wasn't reduced overall and you're simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.

And this is to say nothing about the environmental, societal, and financial costs of freeway construction in heavily built up or environmentally sensitive (thinking wetlands specifically here) areas.  I'm not necessarily saying a given project shouldn't be done, but the costs of such need to be fully weighed against the benefits.  Far too often, freeway promoters ignored the full costs of construction....this is in no small part what led rise to the freeway revolts of the '60s and '70s, because the highwaymen thought they could simply bulldoze over the opposition (pun intended).

What you're describing is suppressed demand. WHich does exists, of course, and which may show up after the new construction. Mobility - including the ability to change jobs on short notice - is an important factor of the modern social system. Suppressing demand may have its positive aspects, but doesn't really fit in a grand scheme of things.
To bring things to a bit of extreme:
Yet again, what you're coming to, is that the best society with minimal travel needs is a dorm above production floor, kids schooled in a basement room, where leaving factory campus without a proper permit is strictly prohibited. Once you allow people to travel off-campus, strange things may happen.

[webny99]

Making it easier to travel, releasing suppressed demand, and causing volumes to rise, isn't the same thing as creating "congestion".

Look up induced demand.  Despite some naysayers on this forum, it is a well-documented outcome.  New roadway construction doesn't just shift traffic over from other facilities, it entices (induces) new trips to be taken...and this is where your congestion often comes into play.  Perhaps not right away but it won't take long especially if there's already latent (i.e. unmet) demand in a given region.

There have also been cases where new freeway facilities got overwhelmed simply from the volume of traffic that was shifted over from other locations.  You can argue semantics all you want about whether that's "congestion" but the bottom line is that the congestion wasn't reduced overall and you're simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.

And this is to say nothing about the environmental, societal, and financial costs of freeway construction in heavily built up or environmentally sensitive (thinking wetlands specifically here) areas.  I'm not necessarily saying a given project shouldn't be done, but the costs of such need to be fully weighed against the benefits.  Far too often, freeway promoters ignored the full costs of construction....this is in no small part what led rise to the freeway revolts of the '60s and '70s, because the highwaymen thought they could simply bulldoze over the opposition (pun intended).

I actually don't disagree with any of that, at least not strongly enough to spend a lot of time on, as you say, semantics.

But there is really two separate conversations to be had: one about truly new freeway construction, often in rural or semi-rural areas, and one about an existing urban structure that has been around for decades and needs replacing.
Case in point, it is much easier to argue that the viaduct should be replaced, than it is to argue that the western bypass of Syracuse should be dug up from the grave and constructed. The latter would be a massive systemwide shakeup, with two very obvious sides to the coin, while the former should be an obvious go-ahead; how could it even be questioned as a critical high-priority project for Syracuse and Upstate NY as a whole?

Upstate New York isn't growing much.

Also true, and if it was growing, this wouldn't even be a conversation we were having.
Imagine similar discussion in Charlotte, NC, or Portland, OR, for example; ridiculous to even think about.
I-81 in Syracuse is a freeway removal guinea pig precisely because the area isn't on the upswing, so the blowback (and added congestion) won't be as extreme or pronounced as it would be in a similar-sized city anywhere else.

[sprjus4]

Far too often, freeway promoters ignored the full costs of construction....

To be fair, the community grid concept that is proposed is $1.9 billion to construct, whereas replacing the viaduct with a new viaduct and reconstructing a major junction would be $2.2 billion - only a $300 million difference.

[webny99]

This discussion has me thinking. Has NYSDOT ever identified, and later changed, their preferred alternative after public blowback (or for any other reason)?

Obviously, this is one of the bigger projects being undertaken, so a shakeup of any sort would be noteworthy. I'm just reading through this thread and a few other sources and trying to assess the chance that they're forced to revisit the rebuild option. Maybe a 20% chance that the rebuild comes back to the table in a legitimate, meaningful way?

[Beltway]

Far too often, freeway promoters ignored the full costs of construction....

To be fair, the community grid concept that is proposed is $1.9 billion to construct, whereas replacing the viaduct with a new viaduct and reconstructing a major junction would be $2.2 billion - only a $300 million difference.

The community grid concept isn't just simple as dismantling the viaduct.  Transitions would have to be built at either end to transition the freeway stub down to the surface streets, the surface streets would need upgrading, and each I-81/I-481 interchange would need a major upgrade to provide an I-81 thru movement.

That said, the cost-benefit ratio is horribly against the community grid as compared to the freeway project, as your figures above substantiate.  90% of the cost for a huge loss of regional capacity and connectivity.

[vdeane]

This discussion has me thinking. Has NYSDOT ever identified, and later changed, their preferred alternative after public blowback (or for any other reason)?

Obviously, this is one of the bigger projects being undertaken, so a shakeup of any sort would be noteworthy. I'm just reading through this thread and a few other sources and trying to assess the chance that they're forced to revisit the rebuild option. Maybe a 20% chance that the rebuild comes back to the table in a legitimate, meaningful way?

It happened on a bridge project on the Northway.  The project was to replace the overpasses for Crescent and East High and to close/demolish the one for Nelson; after significant opposition, the plan to close/demolish Nelson was dropped and the project proceeded with just the replacements for Crescent and East High.

That said, I would assume the I-81 preferred alternative has a lower chance of being changed for a multitude of reasons - chief among them being that whether one supports the grid or the viaduct is very much a matter of ideology (New Urbanism vs. highways).

(personal opinion)