Interstate 81 in Syracuse

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Rothman

The ROW takings with the viaduct replacement were of a much greater number and cost than with the community grid.  It was one of the factors in the decision to go with the grid, insofar as I am aware.

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


sprjus4

Quote from: Rothman on January 17, 2020, 02:00:08 PM
The ROW takings with the viaduct replacement were of a much greater number and cost than with the community grid.  It was one of the factors in the decision to go with the grid, insofar as I am aware.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Cost vs. benefit.

The viaduct option may have greater impacts and cost, though will have far greater benefits in the long term than a community grid would. The Alabama project involved higher cost and impacts than rehabilitating the existing viaduct, though they chose that option due to the greater benefits in the long term.

kalvado

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 03:48:58 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 17, 2020, 02:00:08 PM
The ROW takings with the viaduct replacement were of a much greater number and cost than with the community grid.  It was one of the factors in the decision to go with the grid, insofar as I am aware.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Cost vs. benefit.

The viaduct option may have greater impacts and cost, though will have far greater benefits in the long term than a community grid would. The Alabama project involved higher cost and impacts than rehabilitating the existing viaduct, though they chose that option due to the greater benefits in the long term.
NY state has a negative population growth rate, more so for upstate; and seems to be  planning for future negative population growth as well.
Given project cost, abandoning city of Syracuse is likely a preferred option cost-wise.

Beltway

Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 04:18:55 PM
NY state has a negative population growth rate, more so for upstate; and seems to be  planning for future negative population growth as well.
Given project cost, abandoning city of Syracuse is likely a preferred option cost-wise.

Repeated acts of urban hari-kari like with this I-81 matter, are the reason for the negative population growth rate, not the other way around; it is not like a negative population growth rate is causing the acts of hara-kiri.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 04:18:55 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 03:48:58 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 17, 2020, 02:00:08 PM
The ROW takings with the viaduct replacement were of a much greater number and cost than with the community grid.  It was one of the factors in the decision to go with the grid, insofar as I am aware.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Cost vs. benefit.

The viaduct option may have greater impacts and cost, though will have far greater benefits in the long term than a community grid would. The Alabama project involved higher cost and impacts than rehabilitating the existing viaduct, though they chose that option due to the greater benefits in the long term.
NY state has a negative population growth rate, more so for upstate; and seems to be  planning for future negative population growth as well.
Given project cost, abandoning city of Syracuse is likely a preferred option cost-wise.
So give up and all but ensure with a lack of infrastructure the state will continue to shrink? Going from a freeway to a boulevard is downgrade in every sense.

sprjus4

Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 04:18:55 PM
Given project cost, abandoning city of Syracuse is likely a preferred option cost-wise.
$1.9 billion for a community grid. Seems like a lot of money poured into the city to appease locals and RE/T groups, and choke I-481 which will eventually require a 6-lane widening that could easily cost more than the $300 million difference. Not to mention that I-81 North to I-690 West movement will have to travel local roads or go even further out of the way.

Compare that to $2.2 billion for a viaduct replacement which would have far greater benefits in the long-term for both local and long-distance traffic, something that type of money is better used for.

kalvado

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 04:56:02 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 04:18:55 PM
Given project cost, abandoning city of Syracuse is likely a preferred option cost-wise.
$1.9 billion for a community grid. Seems like a lot of money poured into the city to appease locals and RE/T groups, and choke I-481 which will eventually require a 6-lane widening that could easily cost more than the $300 million difference. Not to mention that I-81 North to I-690 West movement will have to travel local roads or go even further out of the way.

Compare that to $2.2 billion for a viaduct replacement which would have far greater benefits in the long-term for both local and long-distance traffic, something that type of money is better used for.
Mr. Moses, this is 2020, not 1960. Demolishing city for better traffic - especially if there is no traffic to begin with - is hard to sell, for better or worse.

sprjus4


kalvado

Quote from: Beltway on January 17, 2020, 04:44:51 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 04:18:55 PM
NY state has a negative population growth rate, more so for upstate; and seems to be  planning for future negative population growth as well.
Given project cost, abandoning city of Syracuse is likely a preferred option cost-wise.

Repeated acts of urban hari-kari like with this I-81 matter, are the reason for the negative population growth rate, not the other way around; it is not like a negative population growth rate is causing the acts of hara-kiri.
We can talk quite a bit about it; but probably uncontrolled spending and overtaxation is a bigger problem. Spending big time on fancy projects is going to make problem worse, not better.
And I am sort of agreeing with you, see this post: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18020.msg2393056#msg2393056
I just don't think this highway really matters that much - shape of bandaid sticker doesn't matter, bullet went all the way through.

sprjus4

Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 05:25:50 PM
I just don't think this highway really matters that much - shape of bandaid sticker doesn't matter, bullet went all the way through.
After it, it's just a local 1960 era freeway that is well underutilized and is merely a spur off of a major interstate highway and will not have much impact on traffic removing it.

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 05:12:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 04:56:02 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 04:18:55 PM
Given project cost, abandoning city of Syracuse is likely a preferred option cost-wise.
$1.9 billion for a community grid. Seems like a lot of money poured into the city to appease locals and RE/T groups, and choke I-481 which will eventually require a 6-lane widening that could easily cost more than the $300 million difference. Not to mention that I-81 North to I-690 West movement will have to travel local roads or go even further out of the way.

Compare that to $2.2 billion for a viaduct replacement which would have far greater benefits in the long-term for both local and long-distance traffic, something that type of money is better used for.
Mr. Moses, this is 2020, not 1960. Demolishing city for better traffic - especially if there is no traffic to begin with - is hard to sell, for better or worse.
Yet nearly every city in the world is still investing in freeways. With your logic of freeway building being a relic of the 60s than trains are even worse being a relic of the 1800s.

kalvado

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 17, 2020, 05:58:11 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 05:12:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 04:56:02 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 04:18:55 PM
Given project cost, abandoning city of Syracuse is likely a preferred option cost-wise.
$1.9 billion for a community grid. Seems like a lot of money poured into the city to appease locals and RE/T groups, and choke I-481 which will eventually require a 6-lane widening that could easily cost more than the $300 million difference. Not to mention that I-81 North to I-690 West movement will have to travel local roads or go even further out of the way.

Compare that to $2.2 billion for a viaduct replacement which would have far greater benefits in the long-term for both local and long-distance traffic, something that type of money is better used for.
Mr. Moses, this is 2020, not 1960. Demolishing city for better traffic - especially if there is no traffic to begin with - is hard to sell, for better or worse.
Yet nearly every city in the world is still investing in freeways. With your logic of freeway building being a relic of the 60s than trains are even worse being a relic of the 1800s.
Nearly every city which can afford it. This is said reality in NYS: we can barely afford maintaining relics of 60s, major construction is beyond reach. And we have $6B budget gap projected for next year.
This discussion goes way beyond I-81, though.

sprjus4

#662
Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 06:17:08 PM
Nearly every city which can afford it.
Yet NYSDOT has no problem spending $1.9 billion to appease RE/T groups and locals?

You continue to act like the community grid option costs $50 million and the I-81 viaduct replacement costs $2.2 billion.

Both options cost around the same, and one provides greater benefits in the long-term for local, regional, and long-distance traffic. The other appeases locals and chokes regional and long-distance traffic, though because it costs 9% less and appeases locals, it's preferred. The current preferred option is an irresponsible spending of limited funding, and will only hurt Syracuse further routing traffic away from the city.

Alabama is doing it right.

Plutonic Panda

I am just bewildered that it will cost 3-4x more to build a smaller freeway than what Alabama built theirs, a wider one, for. The projects seem comparable even though Syracuse's looks a bit longer.

sprjus4

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 17, 2020, 06:31:18 PM
I am just bewildered that it will cost 3-4x more to build a smaller freeway than what Alabama built theirs, a wider one, for. The projects seem comparable even though Syracuse's looks a bit longer.
Different states, different costs.

A local example, it costs Virginia $50 - $100 million per mile to construct a rural freeway, but right over the border in North Carolina it only costs $25 - $30 million per mile to construct that same rural freeway.

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 06:37:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 17, 2020, 06:31:18 PM
I am just bewildered that it will cost 3-4x more to build a smaller freeway than what Alabama built theirs, a wider one, for. The projects seem comparable even though Syracuse's looks a bit longer.
Different states, different costs.

A local example, it costs Virginia $50 - $100 million per mile to construct a rural freeway, but right over the border in North Carolina it only costs $25 - $30 million per mile to construct that same rural freeway.
It seems to me there are ways to get these costs down. While I understand that there are going to be cost discrepancies among various states, differing factors like geography and population density, two projects like the ones in Birmingham and Syracuse shouldn't have such a cost disparity. A hundred or so million dollars even makes me scratch my head but is understandable but not a billion and this will be even more than that. The renderings of a rebuilt viaduct seem to imply the new road would be built substandard as in its current form.

kalvado

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 17, 2020, 06:58:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 06:37:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 17, 2020, 06:31:18 PM
I am just bewildered that it will cost 3-4x more to build a smaller freeway than what Alabama built theirs, a wider one, for. The projects seem comparable even though Syracuse's looks a bit longer.
Different states, different costs.

A local example, it costs Virginia $50 - $100 million per mile to construct a rural freeway, but right over the border in North Carolina it only costs $25 - $30 million per mile to construct that same rural freeway.
It seems to me there are ways to get these costs down. While I understand that there are going to be cost discrepancies among various states, differing factors like geography and population density, two projects like the ones in Birmingham and Syracuse shouldn't have such a cost disparity. A hundred or so million dollars even makes me scratch my head but is understandable but not a billion and this will be even more than that. The renderings of a rebuilt viaduct seem to imply the new road would be built substandard as in its current form.
Alabama is red, NY is blue. Enough said.
Did you ever hear what "prevailing wage" is? Hint: it means that many people on NY construction site will get $100/hour, working the task done by one minimum wage guy in Alabama

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 06:21:09 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 06:17:08 PM
Nearly every city which can afford it.
Yet NYSDOT has no problem spending $1.9 billion to appease RE/T groups and locals?

You continue to act like the community grid option costs $50 million and the I-81 viaduct replacement costs $2.2 billion.

Both options cost around the same, and one provides greater benefits in the long-term for local, regional, and long-distance traffic. The other appeases locals and chokes regional and long-distance traffic, though because it costs 9% less and appeases locals, it's preferred. The current preferred option is an irresponsible spending of limited funding, and will only hurt Syracuse further routing traffic away from the city.

Alabama is doing it right.
No, I continue to believe dirt will not get moved within next 10 years. Or until old road collapses, and the president will commit to helping out.

Alps

Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 05:12:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 04:56:02 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 04:18:55 PM
Given project cost, abandoning city of Syracuse is likely a preferred option cost-wise.
$1.9 billion for a community grid. Seems like a lot of money poured into the city to appease locals and RE/T groups, and choke I-481 which will eventually require a 6-lane widening that could easily cost more than the $300 million difference. Not to mention that I-81 North to I-690 West movement will have to travel local roads or go even further out of the way.

Compare that to $2.2 billion for a viaduct replacement which would have far greater benefits in the long-term for both local and long-distance traffic, something that type of money is better used for.
Mr. Moses, this is 2020, not 1960. Demolishing city for better traffic - especially if there is no traffic to begin with - is hard to sell, for better or worse.
Demolishing city is likely at this rate. Already started in Rochester.

kalvado

Quote from: Alps on January 18, 2020, 01:16:57 AM
Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 05:12:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 04:56:02 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 17, 2020, 04:18:55 PM
Given project cost, abandoning city of Syracuse is likely a preferred option cost-wise.
$1.9 billion for a community grid. Seems like a lot of money poured into the city to appease locals and RE/T groups, and choke I-481 which will eventually require a 6-lane widening that could easily cost more than the $300 million difference. Not to mention that I-81 North to I-690 West movement will have to travel local roads or go even further out of the way.

Compare that to $2.2 billion for a viaduct replacement which would have far greater benefits in the long-term for both local and long-distance traffic, something that type of money is better used for.
Mr. Moses, this is 2020, not 1960. Demolishing city for better traffic - especially if there is no traffic to begin with - is hard to sell, for better or worse.
Demolishing city is likely at this rate. Already started in Rochester.
And what is the best option here from your perspective - suffocating city by removing traffic access or slump clearance to build a new highway?
And no, you cannot have a cake and eat it too.

kalvado

Actually, since people are advocating rebuild as a long-term beneficial solution.. Let me ask a mirrored question:
someone should pay short-term for either alternative, and by "pay" i mean not money but bigger effects.
Can you justify why you think local residents are the ones who should be suffering? They do have highway going through the city, and they don't get too many benefits of that: depressed city, poor inner district. You're saying they will be even worse off without highway - which is far from a given; and they, collectively, will be worse off if the highway is expanded - because of demolitions if nothing else.
So, why should they pay the price?

webny99

Quote from: Alps on January 18, 2020, 01:16:57 AM
Demolishing city is likely at this rate. Already started in Rochester.

Actually, I think downtown Rochester has very much improved since they filled that section of the loop.

The difference, obviously, is that there's no long distance traffic anywhere near our downtown. Even commuters didn't use the Inner Loop. Couldn't be more opposite to Syracuse in terms of the importance of the highway.

sprjus4

Quote from: webny99 on January 18, 2020, 08:34:14 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 18, 2020, 01:16:57 AM
Demolishing city is likely at this rate. Already started in Rochester.

Actually, I think downtown Rochester has very much improved since they filled that section of the loop.

The difference, obviously, is that there's no long distance traffic anywhere near our downtown. Even commuters didn't use the Inner Loop. Couldn't be more opposite to Syracuse in terms of the importance of the highway.
Exactly, and this is when RE/T groups try to compare demolishing I-81 to other local highway demolitions and say it doesn't hurt traffic. They fail to realize (or publicly admit) that I-81 is a long-distance interstate highway corridor with a heavy traffic load, and the other examples are localized freeways that don't get heavy usage.

ixnay

Quote from: webny99 on January 18, 2020, 08:34:14 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 18, 2020, 01:16:57 AM
Demolishing city is likely at this rate. Already started in Rochester.

Actually, I think downtown Rochester has very much improved since they filled that section of the loop.

More businesses coming downtown iow?  Improved nightlife?  A safer downtown?  Better community coherence?

ixnay
The Washington/Baltimore/Arlington CSA has two Key Bridges, a Minnesota Avenue, and a Mannasota Avenue.

webny99

#673
Quote from: ixnay on January 18, 2020, 09:24:35 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 18, 2020, 08:34:14 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 18, 2020, 01:16:57 AM
Demolishing city is likely at this rate. Already started in Rochester.

Actually, I think downtown Rochester has very much improved since they filled that section of the loop.

More businesses coming downtown iow?  Improved nightlife?  A safer downtown?  Better community coherence?

Not sure about safety (that has never really been an issue in the CBD), but definitely all of the above other than that.

It's amazing how much less of a ghost town it feels like with that empty highway filled, and it really provides a lot more continuity between booming areas like Park Avenue/ South Wedge and the CBD. (And at least we have some new vacant buildings now instead of just old ones!  :-D)

bemybear

#674
In reply to somebody who said people fail to understand or admit what a massive piece of infrastructure is being lost...

The amount of traffic on the boulevard is not going to be what I-81 currently carries or even 50% of it.  It will be almost all people who ACTUALLY want to be in Syracuse, not loads of cat litter and Amazon deliveries headed for the suburbs and umpteen people going from Virginia to someplace on the Thruway.

Also, the 'corridor' will be intact.  Normal non road geeks will blandly/blindly follow signage and be on the lovely modern and soon to be improved I-481.  They aren't creating a section of gravel road between Scranton and I-90.  They are shifting a bunch of trucks and disinterested through traffic to a newer piece of road and turning the old road which used to be the almost everybody road into hopefully a reasonably tolerable road that most non Syracuse people will never use and most people who do use it will on only be on for 2 or 3 miles.  How this modest change becomes the downfall of an entire region is really a head scratcher.

There are two math and logic errors being repeated so often here:
1.  The boulevard is going to be a disaster of no transportation benefit because it's not a giant freeway... Once you remove all the through traffic, there is practically no need of a giant fast road there because most of the traffic on I-81 IS through traffic.  As others have accurately pointed out, there are no signs that indicate that Syracuse is going to be bursting at the seems any time soon with new people moving in and no, a shiny new viaduct (or lack thereof) is probably not going to cure the ills of the city.  The number of people that actually exit in the core of Syracuse is very modest from my (admittedly anecdotal) observations.  Everybody always thinks whatever road they use most often is some snow flake of unimaginable importance to the world and that any change will ruin their lives.  I get it, its human nature and I'm sure I've fallen into that thinking before.

2. The boulevard doesn't cost almost as much as rebuilding the viaduct.  The boulevard PLUS substantial work to make I-481 capable of handling significantly more traffic.... Costs almost as much as the viaduct rebuild.

Chris 

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 08:37:39 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 18, 2020, 08:34:14 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 18, 2020, 01:16:57 AM
Demolishing city is likely at this rate. Already started in Rochester.

Actually, I think downtown Rochester has very much improved since they filled that section of the loop.

The difference, obviously, is that there's no long distance traffic anywhere near our downtown. Even commuters didn't use the Inner Loop. Couldn't be more opposite to Syracuse in terms of the importance of the highway.
Exactly, and this is when RE/T groups try to compare demolishing I-81 to other local highway demolitions and say it doesn't hurt traffic. They fail to realize (or publicly admit) that I-81 is a long-distance interstate highway corridor with a heavy traffic load, and the other examples are localized freeways that don't get heavy usage.



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.