Interstate 81 in Syracuse

[Beltway]

Pardon my ignorance but what is RE/T

Radical environmentalist/transit groups.

and AHA/O

Go up a few posts.

[Plutonic Panda]

thanks for the info!

[webny99]

See my earlier post.  Syracuse has no pull.  No pull means the State won't send more money than it wants to.  Therefore, cost becomes the primary variable in the State's decision.

Right, I get that. But is the state actually completely unwilling to send a penny more than necessary to Syracuse? Maybe, but I'm not convinced. Funds are being poured in to a number of other Upstate projects, but it's clear here that the state wants - and will make sure they get - the grid. So I keep coming back to the grid being very much pre-ordained as a pet project, and cost being a major talking point/crutch in favor of an otherwise hard-to-defend alternative.

[kalvado]

Eh, the soil in that area doesn't look horrible. Low water table, well-drained. It's not like the stuff north and east of Buffalo that is poorly-drained with a high water table. There's a reason most buildings at SUNY Buffalo have no basement and are built on piles.

If  my memory serves me right, water table is linked to the lake, and fairly close to the surface. I am fairly sure I had a link to the elevations map somewhere in this thread.

The soil map for that area is maxed out for the water table ("more than 80 inches"). The lowest point of the viaduct is a good 25 feet above the lake surface elevation.

Challenge accepted! Took a bit of looking for documents.
Here is an appendix D of an independent feasibility study for the tunnel: https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/repository/Appendix%20B-3_Independent%20Tunnel%20Feasibility%20Study_04-19-2019%20Appendix%20C-D.pdf
(D is further down the document)
Study itself is an appendix to a bigger document: https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/library

There are a few interesting things in the document. As for our discussion

Both the depressed roadway alternatives and the underground roadway alternatives generally will be constructed below the groundwater table. The groundwater is presumed to be saline.

Stressed soil and flammable/toxic  gas release from shale soil are two other issues for construction.

[vdeane]

The cheapest option was chosen. That's basically it.

Something tells me Syracuse's pull on Albany doesn't quite match Birmingham's pull on Montgomery.

Eh, I can see there being more to it.  Cuomo has been pretty on board with freeway removal projects (see: the Scajaquada, Buffalo Skyway, and the Sheridan; I think the Inner Loop was a city project, but if not, add it to the list too).  And like the Sheridan, the city strongly wants to remove I-81; the choice only becomes more controversial once the suburbs and thru traffic are taken into account.

(personal opinion)

[kalvado]

See my earlier post.  Syracuse has no pull.  No pull means the State won't send more money than it wants to.  Therefore, cost becomes the primary variable in the State's decision.

Right, I get that. But is the state actually completely unwilling to send a penny more than necessary to Syracuse? Maybe, but I'm not convinced. Funds are being poured in to a number of other Upstate projects, but it's clear here that the state wants - and will make sure they get - the grid. So I keep coming back to the grid being very much pre-ordained as a pet project, and cost being a major talking point/crutch in favor of an otherwise hard-to-defend alternative.

If you think about it... Syracuse area population is 662k, we're talking about.. lets round the number - $3.3B for construction, that is $5k per area resident.
Assuming a current federal gas tax rate of ~0.7 cents/mile and typical mileage, say, 13k.year - or $100 per vehicle a year; this project is consuming 50 years worth of federal gas tax paid by the area, or 20-25 years if NYS taxes are included, before any maintenance or other road needs are considered
You may twist the number in many ways - but the message is simple: construction money are not going to come from taxes generated by the road use in the area, which is a significant issue for the road with majority of traffic being commuters. 

[kalvado]

The cheapest option was chosen. That's basically it.

Something tells me Syracuse's pull on Albany doesn't quite match Birmingham's pull on Montgomery.

Eh, I can see there being more to it.  Cuomo has been pretty on board with freeway removal projects (see: the Scajaquada, Buffalo Skyway, and the Sheridan; I think the Inner Loop was a city project, but if not, add it to the list too).  And like the Sheridan, the city strongly wants to remove I-81; the choice only becomes more controversial once the suburbs and thru traffic are taken into account.

(personal opinion)

On the other hand, 787 got a major rehab under current administration...

[vdeane]

On the other hand, 787 got a major rehab under current administration...

The Buffalo Skyway just had a major rehab too (I think it just finished, but may still be under construction).  Doesn't mean that Cuomo isn't pushing removal in the relatively near term.

Regarding I-787, I think the debate on removing it is more recent than many of the other corridors.

[cl94]

787 will also be a far harder sell than the others for a variety of reasons. Even as it is, the Skyway and 81 are going to have quite a few lawsuits and some strong opposition from the suburbs. 787 has higher traffic counts than anything else they've proposed removing.

[seicer]

On the other hand, 787 got a major rehab under current administration...

The Buffalo Skyway just had a major rehab too (I think it just finished, but may still be under construction).  Doesn't mean that Cuomo isn't pushing removal in the relatively near term.

Regarding I-787, I think the debate on removing it is more recent than many of the other corridors.

The Skyway was a bridge deck rehab, if I am not mistaken. It adds approximately 15-20 years to the life expectancy of the bridge, which gives plenty of time for those decisions to be made on its future.

[Michael]

Wow, this thread has blown up since I last looked at it!  Here's a few thoughts on some of the recent posts that stood out to me:

The cheapest option was chosen. That's basically it.
Something tells me Syracuse's pull on Albany doesn't quite match Birmingham's pull on Montgomery.

Barely any cheap, only a couple hundred million out of an already multi-billion dollar project. Not to mention, the benefits are far greater on regional traffic flow with the viaduct replacement whereas the "cheaper"  one will only choke the beltway further, and eventually call for a widening of its own which could easily ultimately exceed the cost of just replacing the viaduct.
Not to mention local traffic freeway movements are eliminated and will require surface street driving to navigate as opposed to existing freeway.
It's a RE/T project and they won this one it seems. New York's DOT is a joke for going along with it.

The "community grid" costs 91% of what the viaduct replacement project would cost.

Results in a huge reduction in capacity and severing of vital access links as opposed to a moderate increase in capacity and safety.

The anti-highway activist/obstructionist (AHA/O) groups are undoubtedly pleased.

I agree that one of the biggest reasons that the grid is being pushed is cost.  It has always seemed silly to me since it isn't much cheaper than a replacement, but seeing the 91% really makes it stand out more to me!

See my earlier post.  Syracuse has no pull.  No pull means the State won't send more money than it wants to.  Therefore, cost becomes the primary variable in the State's decision.

Right, I get that. But is the state actually completely unwilling to send a penny more than necessary to Syracuse? Maybe, but I'm not convinced. Funds are being poured in to a number of other Upstate projects, but it's clear here that the state wants - and will make sure they get - the grid. So I keep coming back to the grid being very much pre-ordained as a pet project, and cost being a major talking point/crutch in favor of an otherwise hard-to-defend alternative.

I agree that it seems like this is a pet project for the state and/or NYSDOT.



A couple days ago, I saw an article on Syracuse.com about the grid needing more land than originally stated:
Exclusive: I-81 project would take land from unsuspecting homeowners; "˜that's my backyard'

I wonder how this will affect the opinions of people who support the grid because of the smaller impact since the impact isn't as small after all.



Yesterday, I saw a post from NewsChannel 9 on Facebook that mentioned an article from the Washington Post:
In Syracuse, a road and reparations

The article is long, so I just skimmed through it.  The gist I got is that the viaduct is racist, and it needs to be removed to repair the damage done when it was first built.  I've read that argument before, and I'm open to the idea that it may have been racist at the time it was built, but I have a hard time believing that it's racist now and removing it will magically make everything better.  To me, it's a more specific version of the "it divides people" argument, which I've mentioned before that I think is silly.



A thought I've had before about building impacts, but never mentioned in the thread is what about moving buildings?  I've seen some pretty big buildings moved, and there's open land south of I-690 just to the east of it's interchange with I-81.  Once the bridges come down, there shouldn't be too many overhead obstacles in the way.

Lastly, I wonder if people complaining about the cost of either option realize that this project involves more than just the viaduct.  They may not realize that it's going to involve all of I-81 in Syracuse, I-690 through downtown, and if the grid is chosen, the two I-481 interchanges and some of I-481 itself.  That's a lot more than just a viaduct!

[Henry]

I went ahead and drew up an exit list for the upcoming reroute, which shows both the sequential and potential mileage-based exit numbering schemes:

I-81 NY Reroute Part 1 by Henry Watson, on Flickr
I-81 NY Reroute Part 2 by Henry Watson, on Flickr
I-81 NY Reroute Part 3 by Henry Watson, on Flickr

[vdeane]

A few notes:
-NY appears to have the "round down" method as policy.
-The "old exit" numbers appear to be equally fictional as the "new exit" numbers.
-182B/182A isn't MUTCD compliant - should be reversed.
-NY is moving away from the "don't number freeway junctions" policy.  Actually, the Wikipedia exit list is a little outdated on this - what's listed as exit 4 is now 4A and the NY 17 junction is now 4B.

[Henry]

Everything south of the I-481 junction in south Syracuse would remain the same, but north of the I-481/NY 481 junction in Cicero, the exit numbers would go down by five while the mileage would go up by 3.9 (187.52 compared to the current 183.62). And the former would be assuming that NY does not adopt a mileage-based numbering scheme statewide, though given that I-84 was already converted, it would only be a matter of time before the other Interstates got the same treatment.

[vdeane]

They're not really "old" numbers then, are they?  In any case, I doubt the whole road would be renumbered if I-81 were to remain sequential since there are fewer interchanges on the new route than the old, and I think someone posted a report that it would go mile-based if rerouted anyways.

[machias]

They're not really "old" numbers then, are they?  In any case, I doubt the whole road would be renumbered if I-81 were to remain sequential since there are fewer interchanges on the new route than the old, and I think someone posted a report that it would go mile-based if rerouted anyways.

Yes, according the conversations I had with R3 two years ago, since I-81 would be relocated, they would have to renumber all the interchanges in the new alignment and because of that change it's been decided that's when they'll go to milepost numbers for the entire route. R3 has already been coordinating with the other two regions. This would happen even if they went to the non-grid alternative, as the number of interchanges would still change.

[machias]

They're not really "old" numbers then, are they?  In any case, I doubt the whole road would be renumbered if I-81 were to remain sequential since there are fewer interchanges on the new route than the old, and I think someone posted a report that it would go mile-based if rerouted anyways.

Yes, according the conversations I had with R3 two years ago, since I-81 would be relocated, they would have to renumber all the interchanges in the new alignment and because of that change it's been decided that's when they'll go to milepost numbers for the entire route. R3 has already been coordinating with the other two regions. This would happen even if they went to the non-grid alternative, as the number of interchanges would still change.

And now that I think about it, NY 481 would have to get all new exit numbers as well if NYSDOT with the grid plan in Downtown Syracuse and they would then go to distance based as well.

[sparker]

Since the existing freeway portion of present I-81 north of I-690 will remain intact, are there any rumblings regarding reassigning the I-481 number to that segment -- since it will undoubtedly remain on the FHWA logbooks as chargeable mileage?   It would seem quite logical to do that as a continuation (albeit less direct) of NY 481. 

[Rothman]

Since the existing freeway portion of present I-81 north of I-690 will remain intact, are there any rumblings regarding reassigning the I-481 number to that segment -- since it will undoubtedly remain on the FHWA logbooks as chargeable mileage?   It would seem quite logical to do that as a continuation (albeit less direct) of NY 481.

No.  It will become BL I-81, per most recent presentations.

[Roadsguy]

Not to mention actually swapping the 81 and 481 numbers would confuse drivers more than the project will as-is. DelDOT realized the same when they briefly moved I-95 onto I-495, with the route through Wilmington becoming I-895, not 495. The later cancelled proposal similarly would have seen Business I-95 on the downtown route, not 495.

[vdeane]

Since the existing freeway portion of present I-81 north of I-690 will remain intact, are there any rumblings regarding reassigning the I-481 number to that segment -- since it will undoubtedly remain on the FHWA logbooks as chargeable mileage?   It would seem quite logical to do that as a continuation (albeit less direct) of NY 481.

No.  It will become BL I-81, per most recent presentations.

Unfortunately.  As far as I'm concerned, business interstate aren't REAL interstates, and I'd prefer to see them go away - the last thing we need is to add another.  Plus they're functionally deleting even the freeway portions of the current route from the interstate system with the current plan.  I wonder if it has anything to do with the removal of the ramps connecting the north and west.  FHWA doesn't like partial interchanges, but they might find it more palatable if it isn't the terminus of an interstate.

Navigating the Syracuse area with the interstate system serving as the backbone (with lesser routes used only for "last mile" connections - minus the Thruway of course, because you have to enter the ticket system through double trumpet interchanges) was never something the metro was great at in the first place, but once the I-81 viaduct is removed and I-81 rerouted it will be effectively impossible.

(personal opinion)

[sturmde]

I know the current plan is to sign a BL-81.  I know that those are now becoming frowned upon as confusing to the average driver of the least common denominator.  As we are seeing with North Carolina, ditching Green 40 in W-S for US 421 and Green 85 for US 29... was there any consideration to signing these with spur routes, as the southern section still is to interstate standards and could serve as an I-181 to the point it becomes a surface boulevard which could be BUS SPUR 181?  (Maybe Tennessee has some spare I-181 signs they'd send to NY for cheap. )
.
The northern component since it would remain intact (I presume) from I-690 to the current I-81/I-481/NY 481 interchange... wouldn't that make sense as I-281?
.
I'd think a 181 stub and a 281 connector would be a lot more "in the spirit of the rules" and maintain all but the surface boulevard as part of the system.

[vdeane]

I-681 would make more sense than I-281 for the existing route - NY 281 not only exists, but it's less than 20 miles away.

Not sure if the remaining freeway at the south end would be significant enough to have an I-181 number.  A NYS reference route designation would seem more likely.  The freeway/expressway/parkway removals in Rochester and Buffalo didn't result in any new touring routes or even reference routes - the state route was simply truncated and the surface road given to the municipality.

[Beltway]

The "community grid" costs 91% of what the viaduct replacement project would cost.
Results in a huge reduction in capacity and severing of vital access links as opposed to a moderate increase in capacity and safety.

I agree that one of the biggest reasons that the grid is being pushed is cost.  It has always seemed silly to me since it isn't much cheaper than a replacement, but seeing the 91% really makes it stand out more to me!

Sad.  Very sad.

Has there been any actual final official decision on what alternative will be selected?

[Rothman]

As far as I know, NYSDOT is going around giving public presentations that the grid is the chosen alternative.  It certainly looks like the decision as been made.

One "pro" that NYSDOT puts forward is the fact that ROW takings are going to be far less with the grid than with replacing the viaduct.  Another is that new ramps off of I-690 will be built that supposedly will help traffic get to Syracuse University (I am not so certain).  I believe they'll be at Crouse and maybe University.

Time will tell.

(personal opinion expressed)