Interstate 81 in Syracuse

[Beltway]

Since when are dolphin emojis agency talking points? 🐬🐬🐬🐘

Dolphins are smarter than fish by far -- they know better than to get into the barrel.

[Beltway]

I am also frustrated by differences between FHWA divisions, but once one signs off on that authorization, it's FHWA's word.
Sounds like your disagreement is with FHWA, then.
Insomnia...

Division sign‑off is FHWA procedurally, but it's not the same thing as headquarters consensus. The Cross‑Bronx Expressway was authorized by the Bureau of Public Roads, FHWA's predecessor, and considered "needed" — yet it remains one of the most controversial corridors in the country to this day. That history shows authorization doesn't equal wisdom; it reflects what the federal highway agency of the day was willing to permit in alignment with the state DOT's plan.

Syracuse is no different. The Record of Decision reflects the New York division's authorization, heavily shaped by NYSDOT's preferred alternative and annual allocations. Headquarters sets broad policy, but it doesn't re‑approve every project. That's why you see differences between divisions: one office may bless a removal, another would push modernization. Authorization is "FHWA's word" procedurally, but it doesn't mean headquarters agrees in principle.

The larger issue is precedent. More than 47 state DOTs still treat wholesale removals as radical, preferring modernization or rerouting. Baltimore's severing of I‑695 East with ~32,000 AADT has increased congestion across the network, and residents complain constantly. The Cross‑Bronx was "needed" but remains contested; Syracuse removal will be judged the same way. Using $2 billion in federal highway funds to erase a functioning Interstate isn't just another project — it's a radical departure from the federal aid highway program's mission. Authorization doesn't erase that debate; it guarantees the controversy will endure.

[PColumbus73]

Baltimore's severing of I‑695 East with ~32,000 AADT has increased congestion across the network, and residents complain constantly.

... so it was an inside job all along...

This 'Prove Me Wrong' method of argument is pointless.

[Rothman]

I am also frustrated by differences between FHWA divisions, but once one signs off on that authorization, it's FHWA's word.
Sounds like your disagreement is with FHWA, then.
Insomnia...

Division sign‑off is FHWA procedurally, but it's not the same thing as headquarters consensus. The Cross‑Bronx Expressway was authorized by the Bureau of Public Roads, FHWA's predecessor, and considered "needed" — yet it remains one of the most controversial corridors in the country to this day. That history shows authorization doesn't equal wisdom; it reflects what the federal highway agency of the day was willing to permit in alignment with the state DOT's plan.

Syracuse is no different. The Record of Decision reflects the New York division's authorization, heavily shaped by NYSDOT's preferred alternative and annual allocations. Headquarters sets broad policy, but it doesn't re‑approve every project. That's why you see differences between divisions: one office may bless a removal, another would push modernization. Authorization is "FHWA's word" procedurally, but it doesn't mean headquarters agrees in principle.

The larger issue is precedent. More than 47 state DOTs still treat wholesale removals as radical, preferring modernization or rerouting. Baltimore's severing of I‑695 East with ~32,000 AADT has increased congestion across the network, and residents complain constantly. The Cross‑Bronx was "needed" but remains contested; Syracuse removal will be judged the same way. Using $2 billion in federal highway funds to erase a functioning Interstate isn't just another project — it's a radical departure from the federal aid highway program's mission. Authorization doesn't erase that debate; it guarantees the controversy will endure.

That's certainly a take on it.  I can't remember on which tasks FHWA HQ has been involved with the I-81 Viaduct Project, but I'm pretty sure there have been a couple of things that the Division has had to wait for HQ approval on.

In any matter, have to say that I'm not so sure FHWA HQ would appreciate a Division office going rogue on the largest transportation project to be progressed in NY's history...You'd think they'd care about a couple billion dollars being misspent...

To be honest, I don't think there's a schism between FHWA HQ and FHWA's NY Division...

(personal opinion emphasized)

[Beltway]

Baltimore's severing of I‑695 East with ~32,000 AADT has increased congestion across the network, and residents complain constantly.

... so it was an inside job all along...
This 'Prove Me Wrong' method of argument is pointless.

I wasn't suggesting Baltimore "did the dirty deed." My point was precedent: I‑695 East carried ~32,000 AADT before the Key Bridge collapse -- caused by gross negligence in ship handling, not by "shipcide" -- and its severing has increased congestion across the network. That's a documented outcome, not a conspiracy theory. The lesson is clear: removing or losing a functioning corridor produces lasting impacts.

[vdeane]

You use the "public input is only one ingredient" line as if that resolves the controversy. But that's the generic DOT posture for any project -- expansion, rehab, replacement. What makes Syracuse different is that FHWA funds are being used for removal, which was never the purpose of the federal aid highway program.

The purpose of federal aid programs changes.  As has been mentioned on this forum before, the original interstate funding program is pretty much dead, and has been for decades.  Notably, one of the programs established by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law mentions the following:

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act established the Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) Program to advance community-centered transportation connection projects, with a priority for projects that benefit low-capacity communities. RCP focuses on improving access to daily needs such as jobs, education, healthcare, food, nature, and recreation, and foster development and restoration, and provide technical assistance to further these goals. The primary goal of the RCP Program is to reconnect communities harmed by past transportation infrastructure decisions, through community-supported planning activities and capital construction projects that are championed by those communities.

The RCP Program provides funding for two types of grants. Planning Grants fund the study of removing, retrofitting, or mitigating an existing facility to restore community connectivity; conduct public engagement, and other transportation planning activities. Capital Construction Grants are to carry out a project to remove, retrofit, mitigate, or replace an existing eligible facility with a new facility that reconnects communities.

https://www.transportation.gov/reconnecting

Notably, the IIJA is also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, just in case anyone was thinking this was a figment of the imagination of "radical left Democrats" or anything like that.  So clearly, removal of infrastructure isn't beyond the scope of federal aid funding.

Not a regular in that part of the state but I visit the Buffalo area 3 or 4 times per year.

The Buffalo metro area is nearly twice as large as the Syracuse metro area (as is Richmond).  In terms of Virginia metro areas, Syracuse is most similar to Roanoke (despite being twice as large).

In any case, I don't understand the point of re-litigating this issue on the forum given that largely everything to be said on the viaduct vs. community grid "debate" has been said and construction is underway.

[vdeane]

Moving on to other things, I updated the exit lists on my site again within the project area.  Given the current level of progress on contracts 1 and 2, I've decided to have the I-81, BL 81, and NY 481 exit lists reflect the present designations rather than the eventual designations (matching I-690 and the Thruway/I-90).  I've also updated the mileposts using recent observations from myself, a photo I saw on Facebook, and a 511 traffic camera (that one was a particularly interesting extrapolation from the back of what appears to be the MP 97.0 marker), counting south through exit 81.  Given the discrepancies, I've elected to use an actual/posted split for I-81 (both current and historic) similar to what I've done with I-86/NY 17, largely to explain how the southern interchange MP is different by 0.6 miles even though the interchange hasn't moved.

https://nysroads.com/list-i81.php
https://nysroads.com/list-bl81.php

It's certainly inelegant, but hopefully this will be more of a short-term issue than a long-term one (well, the designation, anyways; the mileage one will probably be forever, depending on where the southern mileposts end up; they're not installed yet).

[kalvado]

Baltimore's severing of I‑695 East with ~32,000 AADT has increased congestion across the network, and residents complain constantly.

... so it was an inside job all along...
This 'Prove Me Wrong' method of argument is pointless.

I wasn't suggesting Baltimore "did the dirty deed." My point was precedent: I‑695 East carried ~32,000 AADT before the Key Bridge collapse -- caused by gross negligence in ship handling, not by "shipcide" -- and its severing has increased congestion across the network. That's a documented outcome, not a conspiracy theory. The lesson is clear: removing or losing a functioning corridor produces lasting impacts.

That's exactly the thing I was talking about - you try to compare through roads with what is mostly a commuter one.

[Beltway]

You use the "public input is only one ingredient" line as if that resolves the controversy. But that's the generic DOT posture for any project -- expansion, rehab, replacement. What makes Syracuse different is that FHWA funds are being used for removal, which was never the purpose of the federal aid highway program.

The purpose of federal aid programs changes.  As has been mentioned on this forum before, the original interstate funding program is pretty much dead, and has been for decades.  Notably, one of the programs established by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law mentions the following:

The RCP program is new, but it doesn't erase the original purpose of public roads federal aid: building and sustaining the Interstate system, arterial routes, primary highways, and FA urban connectors. Using billions from core allocations to remove a functioning corridor is unprecedented.

Baltimore's Key Bridge collapse shows the impact of losing a ~32,000 AADT freeway -- congestion ripples across the network. Syracuse is choosing that outcome voluntarily. Construction underway doesn't resolve the debate; it guarantees the controversy will endure.

[Beltway]

Using $2 billion in federal highway funds to erase a functioning Interstate isn't just another project — it's a radical departure from the federal aid highway program's mission. Authorization doesn't erase that debate; it guarantees the controversy will endure.

That's certainly a take on it.  I can't remember on which tasks FHWA HQ has been involved with the I-81 Viaduct Project, but I'm pretty sure there have been a couple of things that the Division has had to wait for HQ approval on.
In any matter, have to say that I'm not so sure FHWA HQ would appreciate a Division office going rogue on the largest transportation project to be progressed in NY's history...You'd think they'd care about a couple billion dollars being misspent...
To be honest, I don't think there's a schism between FHWA HQ and FHWA's NY Division...

I'm not suggesting the Division went "rogue," only that its authorization doesn't necessarily reflect prevailing views nationwide. FHWA HQ delegates, but that doesn't mean every Division's choice aligns with the broader program's mission.

And it's not the largest transportation project in New York history. The New Tappan Zee replacement cost twice as much in recent dollars, and the Verrazzano‑Narrows would be at least $4 billion today. Those were NYSTA and TBTA, yes, but they dwarf Syracuse. Pretty sad that a freeway removal project is being touted as the biggest in state history.

I wouldn't call it a "schism." The issue is precedent: HQ sets broad policy, Divisions execute, and authorization reflects what a Division is willing to permit in alignment with its state DOT. That's why you see differences, some authorize rapid replacement, others push modernization. The controversy isn't erased by authorization; it's guaranteed.

The issue isn't whether FHWA HQ "cares" -- of course they monitor large allocations. The point is that authorization reflects what a Division is willing to permit in alignment with its state DOT. HQ doesn't re‑approve every corridor; it delegates. That's why you see differences across the country.

Billions have been spent before on projects later judged harshly -- the Cross‑Bronx was federally authorized and remains one of the most contested corridors in America. Authorization didn't erase controversy then, and it won't now.

So the question isn't whether HQ cares about the dollars, it's whether the precedent aligns with the federal aid highway program's mission. Using $2 billion to erase a functioning Interstate is a radical departure, and that debate will endure regardless of procedural sign‑off. And it is not just Syracuse, it is similar plans in Buffalo, Rochester and Albany.

Just what has NYSDOT done in the last 20 years to expand the highway system? I can think of hardly anything. Four mile extension of the US-219 freeway and replacement of a few NY-17 intersections with interchanges.

[Max Rockatansky]

Ah, I was wondering where the fourth Key Bridge thread would emerge at.  Just find an existing thread and hide the Key Bridge shit posting within, brilliant!

[LilianaUwU]

so what do I name the fifth

[Max Rockatansky]

so what do I name the fifth

We sorted that out way back:

Dolphin Wars Episode 5 - The Key Bridge Strikes Back

[Rothman]

Using $2 billion in federal highway funds to erase a functioning Interstate isn't just another project — it's a radical departure from the federal aid highway program's mission. Authorization doesn't erase that debate; it guarantees the controversy will endure.

That's certainly a take on it.  I can't remember on which tasks FHWA HQ has been involved with the I-81 Viaduct Project, but I'm pretty sure there have been a couple of things that the Division has had to wait for HQ approval on.
In any matter, have to say that I'm not so sure FHWA HQ would appreciate a Division office going rogue on the largest transportation project to be progressed in NY's history...You'd think they'd care about a couple billion dollars being misspent...
To be honest, I don't think there's a schism between FHWA HQ and FHWA's NY Division...

I'm not suggesting the Division went "rogue," only that its authorization doesn't necessarily reflect prevailing views nationwide. FHWA HQ delegates, but that doesn't mean every Division's choice aligns with the broader program's mission.

And it's not the largest transportation project in New York history. The New Tappan Zee replacement cost twice as much in recent dollars, and the Verrazzano‑Narrows would be at least $4 billion today. Those were NYSTA and TBTA, yes, but they dwarf Syracuse. Pretty sad that a freeway removal project is being touted as the biggest in state history.

I wouldn't call it a "schism." The issue is precedent: HQ sets broad policy, Divisions execute, and authorization reflects what a Division is willing to permit in alignment with its state DOT. That's why you see differences, some authorize rapid replacement, others push modernization. The controversy isn't erased by authorization; it's guaranteed.

The issue isn't whether FHWA HQ "cares" -- of course they monitor large allocations. The point is that authorization reflects what a Division is willing to permit in alignment with its state DOT. HQ doesn't re‑approve every corridor; it delegates. That's why you see differences across the country.

Billions have been spent before on projects later judged harshly -- the Cross‑Bronx was federally authorized and remains one of the most contested corridors in America. Authorization didn't erase controversy then, and it won't now.

So the question isn't whether HQ cares about the dollars, it's whether the precedent aligns with the federal aid highway program's mission. Using $2 billion to erase a functioning Interstate is a radical departure, and that debate will endure regardless of procedural sign‑off. And it is not just Syracuse, it is similar plans in Buffalo, Rochester and Albany.

Just what has NYSDOT done in the last 20 years to expand the highway system? I can think of hardly anything. Four mile extension of the US-219 freeway and replacement of a few NY-17 intersections with interchanges.

Eh, NYSDOT's history, anyway.  Other than that, I'm still not following how you are connecting lack of dominant consensus to the lack of connection or alignment to federal policy.  Vdeane certainly laid that out in her response to you on this.

Keep in mind that the project is much more than just removing the viaduct...which you know since you looked at the EIS...

[Beltway]

Just what has NYSDOT done in the last 20 years to expand the highway system? I can think of hardly anything. Four mile extension of the US-219 freeway and replacement of a few NY-17 intersections with interchanges.

Eh, NYSDOT's history, anyway.  Other than that, I'm still not following how you are connecting lack of dominant consensus to the lack of connection or alignment to federal policy.  Vdeane certainly laid that out in her response to you on this.
Keep in mind that the project is much more than just removing the viaduct...which you know since you looked at the EIS...

NYSDOT's expansion record over the last 20 years is minimal -- a few NY‑17 interchanges and a short US‑219 extension. That's why removal is unprecedented. Lack of consensus matters because FHWA funds are being used for subtraction, not expansion or modernization, which misaligns with the original federal aid purpose across Interstates, arterials, primaries, and FA urban routes.

The project is wider than just the viaduct, but removal is the centerpiece, and the notion is now spilling into three other major NY upstate cities.

[Scott5114]

Just a reminder to keep this thread on topic as regards to what IS going on with this project and not flights of fantasy regarding what you think SHOULD be going on with this project, or projects in other states. If you would prefer to engage in fantasy, follow this link for further instructions.

[Rothman]

Just what has NYSDOT done in the last 20 years to expand the highway system? I can think of hardly anything. Four mile extension of the US-219 freeway and replacement of a few NY-17 intersections with interchanges.

Eh, NYSDOT's history, anyway.  Other than that, I'm still not following how you are connecting lack of dominant consensus to the lack of connection or alignment to federal policy.  Vdeane certainly laid that out in her response to you on this.
Keep in mind that the project is much more than just removing the viaduct...which you know since you looked at the EIS...

Lack of consensus matters because FHWA funds are being used for subtraction, not expansion or modernization, which misaligns with the original federal aid purpose across Interstates, arterials, primaries, and FA urban routes.

Right.  Just restating what I said I didn't understand doesn't help me understand it. 

You're saying there's a lack of consensus at FHWA without providing much evidence for it; a lack of public consensus really doesn't mean anything given there's a lack of that on every project.  As vdeane pointed out, purposes of federal-aid changes with legislation.  FHWA authorized the funding and there doesn't seem to be much complaining from within FHWA about it, whether from DC or Albany.

I guess my repeated desire to figure out how the pieces you lay out are connected have inappropriately overrun the fact that the funds are authorized and the project is coming into its final phase of construction contracts.  Stating that the federal funds are not being used in alignment with federal funds' "original purpose" is a more than a little moot given FHWA didn't find that to be the case and any and all lawsuits against the project all went kaput on whatever bases the plaintiffs were using (can't remember offhand) through NEPA, which I would assume would have made that argument if the lawyers had found it to be viable.

Feels like we've come full circle on this one.

[vdeane]

NYSDOT's expansion record over the last 20 years is minimal -- a few NY‑17 interchanges and a short US‑219 extension.

NYSDOT changed its priorities in the wake of the Great Recession.  Money is tight, and the pavement/bridge conditions don't lie.Needless to say, preservation is a higher priority than expansion.  You want NY to expand the highway system?  You'll need to find more funding.  A lot more funding.

Not to mention that NY passed a Smart Growth law a few years ago, and literally the first question on the Smart Growth evaluation form is whether the project preserves existing infrastructure.

(personal opinion)

[Plutonic Panda]

Well, in the answer can also lie in more funding as well. Of course, if people in that state want to accept that little to no infrastructure can be expanded because they just have to maintain the shitty infrastructure that exists then they get what they deserve.

[Beltway]

NYSDOT's expansion record over the last 20 years is minimal -- a few NY‑17 interchanges and a short US‑219 extension.

NYSDOT changed its priorities in the wake of the Great Recession.  Money is tight, and the pavement/bridge conditions don't lie.Needless to say, preservation is a higher priority than expansion.  You want NY to expand the highway system?  You'll need to find more funding.  A lot more funding.
Not to mention that NY passed a Smart Growth law a few years ago, and literally the first question on the Smart Growth evaluation form is whether the project preserves existing infrastructure.

You would think they could do better with $7 billion in state and federal annual funding.

The Thruway system and the big bridges and tunnels in NYC and with New Jersey and Canada are administered and funded by different agencies so NYSDOT doesn't have to deal with them.

[kalvado]

Well, in the answer can also lie in more funding as well. Of course, if people in that state want to accept that little to no infrastructure can be expanded because they just have to maintain the shitty infrastructure that exists then they get what they deserve.

There is a well known fact that money doesn't grow on trees, until you're an apple farmer. 

There is also a slow to negative population growth meaning little, if any, demand growth.
Oh, and NY is famous for being Robert Moses home state.

[PColumbus73]

Well, in the answer can also lie in more funding as well. Of course, if people in that state want to accept that little to no infrastructure can be expanded because they just have to maintain the shitty infrastructure that exists then they get what they deserve.

There is a well known fact that money doesn't grow on trees, until you're an apple farmer. 

There is also a slow to negative population growth meaning little, if any, demand growth.
Oh, and NY is famous for being Robert Moses home state.

This is probably more of a discussion on taxes and government spending more broadly. Elected officials generally treat the idea of raising taxes the same as putting their hand on a hot stove. Also, these same elected officials want more than what current tax revenue can pay for, thus the deficit. That comes back to funding new highways if the DOT budget can't keep up with inflation, maintenance, or emergency repairs.

[kalvado]

Well, in the answer can also lie in more funding as well. Of course, if people in that state want to accept that little to no infrastructure can be expanded because they just have to maintain the shitty infrastructure that exists then they get what they deserve.

There is a well known fact that money doesn't grow on trees, until you're an apple farmer. 

There is also a slow to negative population growth meaning little, if any, demand growth.
Oh, and NY is famous for being Robert Moses home state.

This is probably more of a discussion on taxes and government spending more broadly. Elected officials generally treat the idea of raising taxes the same as putting their hand on a hot stove. Also, these same elected officials want more than what current tax revenue can pay for, thus the deficit. That comes back to funding new highways if the DOT budget can't keep up with inflation, maintenance, or emergency repairs.

Very true .. but we may get kicked out of the thread for continuing this.

[Rothman]

Well, in the answer can also lie in more funding as well. Of course, if people in that state want to accept that little to no infrastructure can be expanded because they just have to maintain the shitty infrastructure that exists then they get what they deserve.

There is a well known fact that money doesn't grow on trees, until you're an apple farmer. 

There is also a slow to negative population growth meaning little, if any, demand growth.
Oh, and NY is famous for being Robert Moses home state.

This is probably more of a discussion on taxes and government spending more broadly. Elected officials generally treat the idea of raising taxes the same as putting their hand on a hot stove. Also, these same elected officials want more than what current tax revenue can pay for, thus the deficit. That comes back to funding new highways if the DOT budget can't keep up with inflation, maintenance, or emergency repairs.

Very true .. but we may get kicked out of the thread for continuing this.

For what it's worth, Governor of NY's budget proposals have to be balanced.  Of course, such then go to the legislature for tinkering and they can cause imbalance, although I think that's becoming rarer (?).

More often, imbalances usually hit NY "naturally" as expected revenues do not hit projections over the life of the budget...take from that what you will...

[kalvado]

take from that what you will...

OK, here is my take: About $800 per capita debt service in FY25.