Francis Scott Key Bridge (I-695) complete collapse after large ship hits it

[PColumbus73]

while the I-81 Viaduct was found not to be necessary,

How is it not necessary considering the regional freeway connectivity and traffic volumes?
The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for the I-81 Viaduct in Syracuse has historically been around 80,000 vehicles per day, according to New York State Department of Transportation estimates. This volume includes both local and through traffic, with a significant portion attributed to commuters, freight, and regional connectivity.

As you're arguing that the Key Bridge isn't regionally significant because I-95 & 895 can absorb the extra load, it's fair to argue that it's not necessary to rebuild the I-81 viaduct as all the freight and regional traffic can be (and is being) diverted onto I-481.

The issue is not about a statistical comparison of the two -- it is about Rothmann's logically contradictory stances regarding the two.

Odd Beltway seemingly objects to I-81 removal project because he believes it to be necessary.  Certainly seems to contradict his stance on whether or not the Key Bridge should be replaced.  I suspect his actual rationale for the two stances isn't exactly "data driven."

Taking something 80,000 AADT out of service deliberately that would be a common freeway rehab -- versus what to do about a destroyed 31,000 AADT crossing that has estimates ranging from $1.9 billion to $5 billion which shows a lack of engineering acumen by MDTA. Plus two other harbor freeway crossings within 4 miles and totaling 12 lanes that are handling the traffic.

I am not saying that it should not be replaced -- at length I have detailed the problems with what is currently proposed.

You're also contradicting yourself considering New York completed their studies including public comments, as you have insisted on for the Key Bridge, and determined that keeping the I-81 viaduct is not worth keeping, but in your opinion, the studies regarding I-81 are flawed somehow. Whereas you're arguing Maryland shouldn't rebuild the Key Bridge because they don't need to go through that process (among your various reasons-of-the-week).

I would agree with Rothman that the replacements of I-81 and the Key Bridge are apples and oranges.

[Rothman]

Key Bridge provides an essential crossing over water

How is it essential when 18 months later the 12 lanes of the two other harbor crossings (I-95 and I-895) are handling traffic better than most of the 8-lane I-495 Maryland Beltway that is unaddressed?

225,000 AADT total of which only 31,000 was on 695, and there were 3 harbor crossings in a 4 mile range.

while the I-81 Viaduct was found not to be necessary,

How is it not necessary considering the regional freeway connectivity and traffic volumes?

*sigh*

C'mon, now.  You've been parading yourself around as if you're a better expert on the projects than the engineers actually working on them.  So, your questions are disingenuous at best.

Again, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, the benefits of tearing down the Viaduct exceed the cost of the chosen alternative, while being cheaper than rebuilding the viaduct, which had its own intolerable costs to the community.

I do find comparison to the congested Beltway pretty silly.  The Key Bridge needs to be rebuilt and will be.

[vdeane]

Never mind that the circumstances of I-81 and the Key Bridge are vastly different. A container ship didn't smash into I-81.

That would be pretty impressive.

[Beltway]

I'll be honest with you.  Once you mentioned you wrote a letter to DOGE opposing the Key Bridge replacement I was convinced this was political thing for you.  I also suspect if the current administration proposed the exact same funding mechanism for Key Bridge replacement you wouldn't had any objections.
Why dance around it?  If that is the actual reason for your objections I'll accept that is the way you actually feel. 

You can see the letter copied on my website article.

The whole funding mechanism was political and I see nothing in the past history of federal aid highway programs like it, and I have no reason to think that any others would have done the same. Yes I would say the same for the current administration.

[Beltway]

Key Bridge provides an essential crossing over water

How is it essential when 18 months later the 12 lanes of the two other harbor crossings (I-95 and I-895) are handling traffic better than most of the 8-lane I-495 Maryland Beltway that is unaddressed?
225,000 AADT total of which only 31,000 was on 695, and there were 3 harbor crossings in a 4 mile range.

while the I-81 Viaduct was found not to be necessary,

How is it not necessary considering the regional freeway connectivity and traffic volumes?

Snippage of I-81 traffic volumes noted.

C'mon, now.  You've been parading yourself around as if you're a better expert on the projects than the engineers actually working on them.  So, your questions are disingenuous at best.

Surely you know that these kind of decisions are made by agency managers (and governors above them) and not by the engineering judgement of highway engineers.

Again, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, the benefits of tearing down the Viaduct exceed the cost of the chosen alternative, while being cheaper than rebuilding the viaduct, which had its own intolerable costs to the community.

That is your opinion that you have been broadcasting ad infinitum on multiple roads forums for the last 4 years at least.

About $200 million for the 0.9 mile viaduct rehab/replace versus a $2.2 billion Superhighway Diet.

[Rothman]

Key Bridge provides an essential crossing over water

How is it essential when 18 months later the 12 lanes of the two other harbor crossings (I-95 and I-895) are handling traffic better than most of the 8-lane I-495 Maryland Beltway that is unaddressed?
225,000 AADT total of which only 31,000 was on 695, and there were 3 harbor crossings in a 4 mile range.

while the I-81 Viaduct was found not to be necessary,

How is it not necessary considering the regional freeway connectivity and traffic volumes?

Snippage of I-81 traffic volumes noted.

C'mon, now.  You've been parading yourself around as if you're a better expert on the projects than the engineers actually working on them.  So, your questions are disingenuous at best.

Surely you know that these kind of decisions are made by agency managers (and governors above them) and not by the engineering judgement of highway engineers.

Again, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, the benefits of tearing down the Viaduct exceed the cost of the chosen alternative, while being cheaper than rebuilding the viaduct, which had its own intolerable costs to the community.

That is your opinion that you have been broadcasting ad infinitum on multiple roads forums for the last 4 years at least.

About $200 million for the 0.9 mile viaduct rehab/replace versus a $2.2 billion Superhighway Diet.

The fact you throw out that $200m compared to the much more official and thought-through estimate of over $2B for the replacement shows that the lack of expertise is not on the project engineers' parts, but your own.

At least my opinions are backed by the actual work done on the projects, while yours are not based upon anything but your own armchair pontifications.

[Beltway]

That is your opinion that you have been broadcasting ad infinitum on multiple roads forums for the last 4 years at least.
About $200 million for the 0.9 mile viaduct rehab/replace versus a $2.2 billion Superhighway Diet.

The fact you throw out that $200m compared to the much more official and thought-through estimate of over $2B for the replacement shows that the lack of expertise is not on the project engineers' parts, but your own.
At least my opinions are backed by the actual work done on the projects, while yours are not based upon anything but your own armchair pontifications.

Sorry, no official source claimed that a 0.9 mile I-81 viaduct rehab/replace project would cost $2 billion.

Maryland on I-895 replaced a 0.9 mile 4-lane viaduct for less than that several years ago.

The I-895 Canton Viaduct replacement in Baltimore cost approximately $189 million.

I am pleased to announce that the third recent TBM-driven highway tunnel has been completed to breakthrough in the Hampton Roads area last week.

Mary will be taken apart in stages, with major components like the cutterhead, shield, and trailing gear removed for either refurbishment, recycling, or disposal. Unlike some deep tunnel projects, Mary will not be entombed -- she's being actively recovered.

Mary was the largest TBM in North America, weighing 4,700 tons and stretching 430 feet. She bored two 7,900 foot long tunnels beneath the harbor, reaching depths of 173 feet below water level, and moved over 1 million cubic yards of soil.

[Rothman]

That is your opinion that you have been broadcasting ad infinitum on multiple roads forums for the last 4 years at least.
About $200 million for the 0.9 mile viaduct rehab/replace versus a $2.2 billion Superhighway Diet.

The fact you throw out that $200m compared to the much more official and thought-through estimate of over $2B for the replacement shows that the lack of expertise is not on the project engineers' parts, but your own.
At least my opinions are backed by the actual work done on the projects, while yours are not based upon anything but your own armchair pontifications.

Sorry, no official source claimed that a 0.9 mile I-81 viaduct rehab/replace project would cost $2 billion.

Maryland on I-895 replaced a 0.9 mile 4-lane viaduct for less than that several years ago.

The I-895 Canton Viaduct replacement in Baltimore cost approximately $189 million.

I am pleased to announce that the third recent TBM-driven highway tunnel has been completed to breakthrough in the Hampton Roads area last week.

Mary will be taken apart in stages, with major components like the cutterhead, shield, and trailing gear removed for either refurbishment, recycling, or disposal. Unlike some deep tunnel projects, Mary will not be entombed -- she's being actively recovered.

Mary was the largest TBM in North America, weighing 4,700 tons and stretching 430 feet. She bored two 7,900 foot long tunnels beneath the harbor, reaching depths of 173 feet below water level, and moved over 1 million cubic yards of soil.

You once again show insistent ignorance across different situations.

[Beltway]

The fact you throw out that $200m compared to the much more official and thought-through estimate of over $2B for the replacement shows that the lack of expertise is not on the project engineers' parts, but your own.
At least my opinions are backed by the actual work done on the projects, while yours are not based upon anything but your own armchair pontifications.

Sorry, no official source claimed that a 0.9 mile I-81 viaduct rehab/replace project would cost $2 billion.
Maryland on I-895 replaced a 0.9 mile 4-lane viaduct for less than that several years ago.
The I-895 Canton Viaduct replacement in Baltimore cost approximately $189 million.

You once again show insistent ignorance across different situations.

Please detail the engineer's cost estimate for replacing or rehabbing the 0.9 mile I-81 viaduct alone.

[Rothman]

The fact you throw out that $200m compared to the much more official and thought-through estimate of over $2B for the replacement shows that the lack of expertise is not on the project engineers' parts, but your own.
At least my opinions are backed by the actual work done on the projects, while yours are not based upon anything but your own armchair pontifications.

Sorry, no official source claimed that a 0.9 mile I-81 viaduct rehab/replace project would cost $2 billion.
Maryland on I-895 replaced a 0.9 mile 4-lane viaduct for less than that several years ago.
The I-895 Canton Viaduct replacement in Baltimore cost approximately $189 million.

You once again show insistent ignorance across different situations.

Please detail the engineer's cost estimate for replacing or rehabbing the 0.9 mile I-81 viaduct alone.

Pfft.  Please familiarize yourself with the EIS, which explored the feasible alternatives due to the federal requirements you are ignoring.

[Beltway]

The fact you throw out that $200m compared to the much more official and thought-through estimate of over $2B for the replacement shows that the lack of expertise is not on the project engineers' parts, but your own.
At least my opinions are backed by the actual work done on the projects, while yours are not based upon anything but your own armchair pontifications.

Sorry, no official source claimed that a 0.9 mile I-81 viaduct rehab/replace project would cost $2 billion.
Maryland on I-895 replaced a 0.9 mile 4-lane viaduct for less than that several years ago.
The I-895 Canton Viaduct replacement in Baltimore cost approximately $189 million.

You once again show insistent ignorance across different situations.

Please detail the engineer's cost estimate for replacing or rehabbing the 0.9 mile I-81 viaduct alone.

Pfft.  Please familiarize yourself with the EIS, which explored the feasible alternatives due to the federal requirements you are ignoring.

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the I-81 project focused on three main alternatives:
> Community Grid (preferred)
> Tunnel (eliminated due to cost)
> No Build (status quo)

It did not include a detailed cost estimate for simply replacing or rehabbing the 0.9-mile viaduct alone. That option was excluded early, despite being structurally feasible. The closest reference comes from archived discussions and feasibility studies suggesting a ballpark of $200 million for the viaduct-only replacement.

When someone says "Pfft, read the EIS," they're not citing, they're deflecting. The EIS is 1,000+ pages and doesn't contain a line-item cost for the viaduct alone. That's strategic omission, not engineering clarity.

Federal NEPA guidelines require exploration of reasonable alternatives. A viaduct-only replacement is reasonable, it's structurally viable and was the default for decades. Its exclusion reflects political and urban planning priorities, not federal prohibition, and not federal requirements.

[Max Rockatansky]

Seriously, what is up with all the psychoanalysis you keep trying?

[Rothman]

The fact you throw out that $200m compared to the much more official and thought-through estimate of over $2B for the replacement shows that the lack of expertise is not on the project engineers' parts, but your own.
At least my opinions are backed by the actual work done on the projects, while yours are not based upon anything but your own armchair pontifications.

Sorry, no official source claimed that a 0.9 mile I-81 viaduct rehab/replace project would cost $2 billion.
Maryland on I-895 replaced a 0.9 mile 4-lane viaduct for less than that several years ago.
The I-895 Canton Viaduct replacement in Baltimore cost approximately $189 million.

You once again show insistent ignorance across different situations.

Please detail the engineer's cost estimate for replacing or rehabbing the 0.9 mile I-81 viaduct alone.

Pfft.  Please familiarize yourself with the EIS, which explored the feasible alternatives due to the federal requirements you are ignoring.

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the I-81 project focused on three main alternatives:
> Community Grid (preferred)
> Tunnel (eliminated due to cost)
> No Build (status quo)

It did not include a detailed cost estimate for simply replacing or rehabbing the 0.9-mile viaduct alone. That option was excluded early, despite being structurally feasible. The closest reference comes from archived discussions and feasibility studies suggesting a ballpark of $200 million for the viaduct-only replacement.

When someone says "Pfft, read the EIS," they're not citing, they're deflecting. The EIS is 1,000+ pages and doesn't contain a line-item cost for the viaduct alone. That's strategic omission, not engineering clarity.

Federal NEPA guidelines require exploration of reasonable alternatives. A viaduct-only replacement is reasonable, it's structurally viable and was the default for decades. Its exclusion reflects political and urban planning priorities, not federal prohibition, and not federal requirements.

This statement proves that you are totally incorrect and disingenuous with your argument.  When I refer you to the FEIS, it is indeed citing, especially since I thought I was talking to a retired engineer with experience in project development or design (I might have been mistaken in that regard -- I do get people's backgrounds mixed up).

Took me all of ten seconds to confirm how incorrect you are.  Don't want to link the .pdf in case people don't want to download, but if you Google "I-81 Viaduct FEIS", the I-81 Viaduct Project Library is one of the top links: https://webapps.dot.ny.gov/i-81-project-library

Chapter Three (helpfully entitled "ALTERNATIVES") of the FEIS considered no less than EIGHTEEN alternatives: Five viaduct, 2 community grid, seven tunnel alternatives, 2 depressed highway and two "other" alternatives (western bypass and a "West Street" proposal) as easily discerned from the first table presented therein.

Also see Chapter 8 ("SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES"), where the two main alternatives that were vying for preferred after all the other analysis were replacing the viaduct and the community grid alternative.

...

I'm actually rather shocked at this new level of misbehavior on your part.  For as much as I have disagreed with you over the years, you usually have some sort of logic behind your positions and, despite interpreting information in ways I didn't agree with, you at least seemed to respect facts on some level (rather than just ranting about wanting an Interstate in X location because it links up dots on the map and the Fictional-Highways-like, as one example).

I led you straight to the original source -- a document that contains the logic that NYSDOT followed and FHWA signed-off on as legit -- and you dismissed it out of hand and inaccurately.

I mean, what other conclusion can I come to, other than that it brings all your opinions on this matter into question?

[Beltway]

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the I-81 project focused on three main alternatives:
> Community Grid (preferred)
> Tunnel (eliminated due to cost)
> No Build (status quo)
It did not include a detailed cost estimate for simply replacing or rehabbing the 0.9-mile viaduct alone. That option was excluded early, despite being structurally feasible. The closest reference comes from archived discussions and feasibility studies suggesting a ballpark of $200 million for the viaduct-only replacement.
When someone says "Pfft, read the EIS," they're not citing, they're deflecting. The EIS is 1,000+ pages and doesn't contain a line-item cost for the viaduct alone. That's strategic omission, not engineering clarity.
Federal NEPA guidelines require exploration of reasonable alternatives. A viaduct-only replacement is reasonable, it's structurally viable and was the default for decades. Its exclusion reflects political and urban planning priorities, not federal prohibition, and not federal requirements.

This statement proves that you are totally incorrect and disingenuous with your argument.  When I refer you to the FEIS, it is indeed citing, especially since I thought I was talking to a retired engineer with experience in project development or design (I might have been mistaken in that regard -- I do get people's backgrounds mixed up).
Took me all of ten seconds to confirm how incorrect you are.  Don't want to link the .pdf in case people don't want to download, but if you Google "I-81 Viaduct FEIS", the I-81 Viaduct Project Library is one of the top links: https://webapps.dot.ny.gov/i-81-project-library
Chapter Three (helpfully entitled "ALTERNATIVES") of the FEIS considered no less than EIGHTEEN alternatives: Five viaduct, 2 community grid, seven tunnel alternatives, 2 depressed highway and two "other" alternatives (western bypass and a "West Street" proposal) as easily discerned from the first table presented therein.
Also see Chapter 8 ("SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES"), where the two main alternatives that were vying for preferred after all the other analysis were replacing the viaduct and the community grid alternative.

Great -- what they call the Viaduct Alternative is actually including rebuilding the I-690/I-81 interchange and close to a mile of the north, east, west and sound legs of those highways.

What is the cost of replacing/rehabbing the 0.9 mile of I-81 viaduct south of East Washington Street -- the only freeway part that they propose to remove -- correct? Or am I full of baloney?

[Rothman]

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the I-81 project focused on three main alternatives:
> Community Grid (preferred)
> Tunnel (eliminated due to cost)
> No Build (status quo)
It did not include a detailed cost estimate for simply replacing or rehabbing the 0.9-mile viaduct alone. That option was excluded early, despite being structurally feasible. The closest reference comes from archived discussions and feasibility studies suggesting a ballpark of $200 million for the viaduct-only replacement.
When someone says "Pfft, read the EIS," they're not citing, they're deflecting. The EIS is 1,000+ pages and doesn't contain a line-item cost for the viaduct alone. That's strategic omission, not engineering clarity.
Federal NEPA guidelines require exploration of reasonable alternatives. A viaduct-only replacement is reasonable, it's structurally viable and was the default for decades. Its exclusion reflects political and urban planning priorities, not federal prohibition, and not federal requirements.

This statement proves that you are totally incorrect and disingenuous with your argument.  When I refer you to the FEIS, it is indeed citing, especially since I thought I was talking to a retired engineer with experience in project development or design (I might have been mistaken in that regard -- I do get people's backgrounds mixed up).
Took me all of ten seconds to confirm how incorrect you are.  Don't want to link the .pdf in case people don't want to download, but if you Google "I-81 Viaduct FEIS", the I-81 Viaduct Project Library is one of the top links: https://webapps.dot.ny.gov/i-81-project-library
Chapter Three (helpfully entitled "ALTERNATIVES") of the FEIS considered no less than EIGHTEEN alternatives: Five viaduct, 2 community grid, seven tunnel alternatives, 2 depressed highway and two "other" alternatives (western bypass and a "West Street" proposal) as easily discerned from the first table presented therein.
Also see Chapter 8 ("SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES"), where the two main alternatives that were vying for preferred after all the other analysis were replacing the viaduct and the community grid alternative.

Great -- what they call the Viaduct Alternative is actually including rebuilding the I-690/I-81 interchange and close to a mile of the north, east, west and sound legs of those highways.

What is the cost of replacing/rehabbing the 0.9 mile of I-81 viaduct south of East Washington Street -- the only freeway part that they propose to remove -- correct? Or am I full of baloney?

You're still full of baloney.  You can see in the FEIS why replacing in-kind was never a feasible alternative.

[Beltway]

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the I-81 project focused on three main alternatives:
> Community Grid (preferred)
> Tunnel (eliminated due to cost)
> No Build (status quo)
It did not include a detailed cost estimate for simply replacing or rehabbing the 0.9-mile viaduct alone. That option was excluded early, despite being structurally feasible. The closest reference comes from archived discussions and feasibility studies suggesting a ballpark of $200 million for the viaduct-only replacement.
When someone says "Pfft, read the EIS," they're not citing, they're deflecting. The EIS is 1,000+ pages and doesn't contain a line-item cost for the viaduct alone. That's strategic omission, not engineering clarity.
Federal NEPA guidelines require exploration of reasonable alternatives. A viaduct-only replacement is reasonable, it's structurally viable and was the default for decades. Its exclusion reflects political and urban planning priorities, not federal prohibition, and not federal requirements.

This statement proves that you are totally incorrect and disingenuous with your argument.  When I refer you to the FEIS, it is indeed citing, especially since I thought I was talking to a retired engineer with experience in project development or design (I might have been mistaken in that regard -- I do get people's backgrounds mixed up).
Took me all of ten seconds to confirm how incorrect you are.  Don't want to link the .pdf in case people don't want to download, but if you Google "I-81 Viaduct FEIS", the I-81 Viaduct Project Library is one of the top links: https://webapps.dot.ny.gov/i-81-project-library
Chapter Three (helpfully entitled "ALTERNATIVES") of the FEIS considered no less than EIGHTEEN alternatives: Five viaduct, 2 community grid, seven tunnel alternatives, 2 depressed highway and two "other" alternatives (western bypass and a "West Street" proposal) as easily discerned from the first table presented therein.
Also see Chapter 8 ("SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES"), where the two main alternatives that were vying for preferred after all the other analysis were replacing the viaduct and the community grid alternative.

Great -- what they call the Viaduct Alternative is actually including rebuilding the I-690/I-81 interchange and close to a mile of the north, east, west and sound legs of those highways.
What is the cost of replacing/rehabbing the 0.9 mile of I-81 viaduct south of East Washington Street -- the only freeway part that they propose to remove -- correct? Or am I full of baloney?

You're still full of baloney.  You can see in the FEIS why replacing in-kind was never a feasible alternative.

I can't see that in there.

It would be like saying that this was not feasible --
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I95_JRB_Restoration.html

Further discussion belongs in the "Interstate 81 in Syracuse" thread in Northeast.

Any further replies of mine to such will be there.

[Max Rockatansky]

Meh, seems to me that you are just "deflecting."  Why start a comparison in a thread when you aren't willing to finish debating it?  Indeed this thread has become the dog's breakfast...

[Rothman]

I don't see the point of responding to him any longer.  He's not only deflecting, he's not discussing in good faith; he's crossed a line that I don't believe he had before.

The damage is done in my eyes, especially when he has doubled down with his "I can't see that in there": How can one take his opinion seriously from here on out -- even at the low bar set in this silly forum for silly discussion -- when he is so stubborn that he'll greatly misconstrue facts or information to "support" his positions?  I mean, if he's willing to be so far off on what is contained in the FEIS, who are we to accept his AADT stats and other "facts" he presents in other contexts?

And, like I said, the Key Bridge replacement project continues to move forward despite anyone's yelling into the void in here, and I expect that things'll be just fine with the new structure and life will go on:

https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/news/2025/09/24/baltimores-key-bridge-rebuild/86335713007/

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm just not understanding what Beltway is getting out of this.  Sure anyone can have their own opinion on an infrastructure project and base it off of whatever criteria they like.  That said I don't think one person who has participated in thread since page 20 has been swayed to Beltway's views on the Key Bridge replacement. 

[Beltway]

I don't see the point of responding to him any longer.  He's not only deflecting, he's not discussing in good faith; he's crossed a line that I don't believe he had before.

You have been following me around and deliberately annoying me and deliberately irritating me on multiple roads forums for at least 5 years. By taking positions on a variety of subjects contrary to mine and arguing it like a dog with a bone in his mouth and shaking it back and forth.

Several people have done this over the years and I have several theories as to why.

You're recent attempts to start an argument with me about the I-64 GAP Widening projects is a recent example.

I suspect much of what you say about the Key Bridge is an extension of that.

You said on one that you would like to meet me in person -- thanks but no thanks.

[vdeane]

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the I-81 project focused on three main alternatives:
> Community Grid (preferred)
> Tunnel (eliminated due to cost)
> No Build (status quo)
It did not include a detailed cost estimate for simply replacing or rehabbing the 0.9-mile viaduct alone. That option was excluded early, despite being structurally feasible. The closest reference comes from archived discussions and feasibility studies suggesting a ballpark of $200 million for the viaduct-only replacement.
When someone says "Pfft, read the EIS," they're not citing, they're deflecting. The EIS is 1,000+ pages and doesn't contain a line-item cost for the viaduct alone. That's strategic omission, not engineering clarity.
Federal NEPA guidelines require exploration of reasonable alternatives. A viaduct-only replacement is reasonable, it's structurally viable and was the default for decades. Its exclusion reflects political and urban planning priorities, not federal prohibition, and not federal requirements.

This statement proves that you are totally incorrect and disingenuous with your argument.  When I refer you to the FEIS, it is indeed citing, especially since I thought I was talking to a retired engineer with experience in project development or design (I might have been mistaken in that regard -- I do get people's backgrounds mixed up).
Took me all of ten seconds to confirm how incorrect you are.  Don't want to link the .pdf in case people don't want to download, but if you Google "I-81 Viaduct FEIS", the I-81 Viaduct Project Library is one of the top links: https://webapps.dot.ny.gov/i-81-project-library
Chapter Three (helpfully entitled "ALTERNATIVES") of the FEIS considered no less than EIGHTEEN alternatives: Five viaduct, 2 community grid, seven tunnel alternatives, 2 depressed highway and two "other" alternatives (western bypass and a "West Street" proposal) as easily discerned from the first table presented therein.
Also see Chapter 8 ("SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES"), where the two main alternatives that were vying for preferred after all the other analysis were replacing the viaduct and the community grid alternative.

Great -- what they call the Viaduct Alternative is actually including rebuilding the I-690/I-81 interchange and close to a mile of the north, east, west and sound legs of those highways.

What is the cost of replacing/rehabbing the 0.9 mile of I-81 viaduct south of East Washington Street -- the only freeway part that they propose to remove -- correct? Or am I full of baloney?

You're still full of baloney.  You can see in the FEIS why replacing in-kind was never a feasible alternative.

I think Beltway is in fundamental disagreement with the project objectives - as so (emphasis mine):

• Address the transportation network structural deficiencies, particularly associated with aging bridge structures and non-standard/non-conforming design features within the project limits along I-81 and I-690.
• Address vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle geometric and operational deficiencies within the project limits.
• Maintain or enhance vehicle access to the interstate highway network and key destinations (i.e., business districts, hospitals, and institutions) within neighborhoods within and near Downtown Syracuse.
• Maintain or enhance the vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle connections in the local street network within the project limits in and near Downtown Syracuse to allow for connectivity between neighborhoods, business districts, and other key destinations.
• Maintain access to existing local bus service and enhance transit amenities within the project limits in and near Downtown Syracuse.

I also don't see how the viaduct can be separated from the I-690 interchange as he seems to think.  It's all essentially the same structure.

[Beltway]

You're still full of baloney.  You can see in the FEIS why replacing in-kind was never a feasible alternative.

I think Beltway is in fundamental disagreement with the project objectives - as so (emphasis mine):

• Address the transportation network structural deficiencies, particularly associated with aging bridge structures and non-standard/non-conforming design features within the project limits along I-81 and I-690.
• Address vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle geometric and operational deficiencies within the project limits.
• Maintain or enhance vehicle access to the interstate highway network and key destinations (i.e., business districts, hospitals, and institutions) within neighborhoods within and near Downtown Syracuse.
• Maintain or enhance the vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle connections in the local street network within the project limits in and near Downtown Syracuse to allow for connectivity between neighborhoods, business districts, and other key destinations.
• Maintain access to existing local bus service and enhance transit amenities within the project limits in and near Downtown Syracuse.

I also don't see how the viaduct can be separated from the I-690 interchange as he seems to think.  It's all essentially the same structure.

FEIS = Final EIS

That means they selected one alternative from the DEIS and decided on it and moved it to the FEIS.

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^

That sounds like more deflecting...or data cherry-picking...

I don't see the point of responding to him any longer.  He's not only deflecting, he's not discussing in good faith; he's crossed a line that I don't believe he had before.

You have been following me around and deliberately annoying me and deliberately irritating me on multiple roads forums for at least 5 years. By taking positions on a variety of subjects contrary to mine and arguing it like a dog with a bone in his mouth and shaking it back and forth.

Several people have done this over the years and I have several theories as to why.

[/quote

Are you really surprised that there is a large amount of crossover in road group platforms? 

I have theory too about why you're seeing so much disagreement across the expanse of road fandom.  It simply is that your arguments just aren't anywhere is convincing as you believe them to be. 

To that end, claiming you're being harassed and bullied when that isn't the case doesn't work to sway people to your arguments.  You keep going back to that expecting a different result.

[Beltway]

You have been following me around and deliberately annoying me and deliberately irritating me on multiple roads forums for at least 5 years. By taking positions on a variety of subjects contrary to mine and arguing it like a dog with a bone in his mouth and shaking it back and forth.
Several people have done this over the years and I have several theories as to why.
[/quote

Are you really surprised that there is a large amount of crossover in road group platforms? 

I have theory too about why you're seeing so much disagreement across the expanse of road fandom

Wrong -- I am talking about a handful of people over the last 20 years. Out of thousands of posters.

Second point: there are less than a handful of major highway projects that I have ever opposed on those forums.
Let that sink into your ears.

[Rothman]

DEIS is the draft environmental impact statement while the FEIS is the final.  The DEIS is presented to the public and stakeholders for their comments and then the EIS is amended accordingly to become the FEIS.  Both documents include all alternatives and the analysis of such that lead to the preferred alternative, as I pointed out above (and you can see the DEIS and FEIS in the I-81 Viaduct Project's library to confirm).  If anything, the analysis is just made more robust from the local input through the outreach process, since the preferred alternative in the DEIS is put up to debate.

So, both the DEIS and FEIS have a chosen preferred alternative...

Of course, the Feds determined that the Key Bridge did not need to go through the EIS process, determining it to be a categorical exclusion due to lack of impact due to being where the original bridge stood.  That's actually in line with the majority of federal-aid funded bridge replacement projects:  You've already had a bridge and environmental impacts there due to the previous bridge, so the replacement is not expected to affect such to a significant degree above the former bridge.