Interstate 81 in Syracuse

[vdeane]

I heard back from the I-81 project team today regarding the mile markers north of exit 96.  They say that they are "currently working to replace the markers between Exit 96 and the Onondaga County line".  Of course, the question is, what does "currently working" mean?  Does that mean the mile markers are currently being changed, or are they planning for when they will eventually be changed?

It's frustrating maintaining a hobby site sometimes - now I have a dilemma over whether I should update the I-81 list to remove the "posted" mile for exits 98 and 102 in light of this or not (just as I have one regarding the Thruway tolls for exits 25 and 25A, since the Thruway didn't get more specific than "end of summer").  I'm doing a site update Sunday for the I-99 stuff (as I can't do one the following week), and then I don't expect to do one again until mid-September, so the question is, what best reflects the state of the highway system during that time?

[roadman65]

Has the Bear Street bridge over I-81 been reopenedyet?

[vdeane]

Has the Bear Street bridge over I-81 been reopenedyet?

Yes, though it was still a work zone when I was there a month ago, and the new route of NY 298 wasn't fully signed (particularly around the new overlap with US 11).  Court Street is now closed.

[Rothman]

FHWA has issued its rule on updating the National Network to accommodate the I-81/BL-81 route numbering changes:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-11/html/2026-18548.htm

Given AASHTO actions on this were made in 2021, I don't believe further action is needed on AASHTO's part.

Not sure how fast the shields will change (some bags have blown off the green shields already), but I can't see any major obstacles to the switch at this point (famous last words).

(personal opinion emphasized)

[vdeane]

FHWA has issued its rule on updating the National Network to accommodate the I-81/BL-81 route numbering changes:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-11/html/2026-18548.htm

Given AASHTO actions on this were made in 2021, I don't believe further action is needed on AASHTO's part.

Not sure how fast the shields will change (some bags have blown off the green shields already), but I can't see any major obstacles to the switch at this point (famous last words).

(personal opinion emphasized)

Let's hope this solves the "act of Congress" issue.  Last I drove through there (just a week ago), there still appeared to be no movement on updating the mile markers from exit 96 to the Onondaga/Oswego County line.  I wonder if they plan to do that at the same time as changing the shields.  I did see that there are still various sign structure construction notices on 511 left, particularly where overhead signs are, perhaps notifications of work to switch the shields when they're ready to do so?

(personal opinion)


I can also confirm that all exit signage in Jefferson County has been changed, including on Wellesley Island.  Well, all except this sign, but with how much it's peeled, who can tell?

[pderocco]

FHWA has issued its rule on updating the National Network to accommodate the I-81/BL-81 route numbering changes:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-11/html/2026-18548.htm

Given AASHTO actions on this were made in 2021, I don't believe further action is needed on AASHTO's part.

Not sure how fast the shields will change (some bags have blown off the green shields already), but I can't see any major obstacles to the switch at this point (famous last words).

(personal opinion emphasized)

Well, neither Google, Bing, nor OSM have changed the numbers yet. Slackers. But MapQuest has. The part that will be torn down still has interstate shields, but with no number in them. Which raises the question: what's that going to be called until it's closed? It's not exactly a business route at this point.

[pderocco]

FHWA has issued its rule on updating the National Network to accommodate the I-81/BL-81 route numbering changes:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-11/html/2026-18548.htm

Given AASHTO actions on this were made in 2021, I don't believe further action is needed on AASHTO's part.

Not sure how fast the shields will change (some bags have blown off the green shields already), but I can't see any major obstacles to the switch at this point (famous last words).

(personal opinion emphasized)

Well, neither Google, Bin, nor OSM have changed the numbers yet. Slackers. But MapQuest has. The part that will be torn down still has interstate shields, but with no number in them. Which raises the question: what's that going to be called until it's closed? It's not exactly a business route at this point.

Correction: MapQuest shows the doomed freeway with interstate shields with 81 in black against the blue background, so you can hardly see it.

[Rothman]

FHWA has issued its rule on updating the National Network to accommodate the I-81/BL-81 route numbering changes:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-11/html/2026-18548.htm

Given AASHTO actions on this were made in 2021, I don't believe further action is needed on AASHTO's part.

Not sure how fast the shields will change (some bags have blown off the green shields already), but I can't see any major obstacles to the switch at this point (famous last words).

(personal opinion emphasized)

Let's hope this solves the "act of Congress" issue.  Last I drove through there (just a week ago), there still appeared to be no movement on updating the mile markers from exit 96 to the Onondaga/Oswego County line.  I wonder if they plan to do that at the same time as changing the shields.  I did see that there are still various sign structure construction notices on 511 left, particularly where overhead signs are, perhaps notifications of work to switch the shields when they're ready to do so?

(personal opinion)


I can also confirm that all exit signage in Jefferson County has been changed, including on Wellesley Island.  Well, all except this sign, but with how much it's peeled, who can tell?

Right.  No Act of Congress should be needed, either, at this point.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[vdeane]

The part that will be torn down still has interstate shields, but with no number in them. Which raises the question: what's that going to be called until it's closed? It's not exactly a business route at this point.

I would think BL 81.  All-freeway business interstates are not without precedent (see: BL 80 in Sacramento), and it's not like the viaduct is going to be open to traffic much longer.  IIRC, it's due to close by the end of the year when the roundabout opens.

Right.  No Act of Congress should be needed, either, at this point.

(personal opinion emphasized)

That's good to hear.  Now I have to decide if I want to reflect this on my website.  I was already planning to do a 81-centric update this weekend, including removing the I-81 miles off the BL 81 exit list for the portions that have BL 81 mileposts installed.  I'd rather not defer the exit list changes to a different update or make changes twice in short succession, but I'd also rather not jump the gun if it's going to be a while, either.

[cockroachking]

The part that will be torn down still has interstate shields, but with no number in them. Which raises the question: what's that going to be called until it's closed? It's not exactly a business route at this point.

I would think BL 81.  All-freeway business interstates are not without precedent (see: BL 80 in Sacramento), and it's not like the viaduct is going to be open to traffic much longer.  IIRC, it's due to close by the end of the year when the roundabout opens.

I had written a note to myself a few months back after perusing the contract documents that traffic would likely be coming off the viaduct for good sometime early next year, perhaps spring or early summer. I don't remember how I came to that conclusion though, and I don't feel like wading through thousands of plansheets again.

It is interesting though, as I thought DQAB was strongly encouraging the use of roll plot plans now, and then we get exactly zero on the state's "flagship" project? Silliness!

(personal opinion)

[vdeane]

It is interesting though, as I thought DQAB was strongly encouraging the use of roll plot plans now, and then we get exactly zero on the state's "flagship" project? Silliness!

A large chunk of the contracts for the viaduct removal are design-build (1, 2, 6, and 7; 3, 4, 5, and 6A are traditional, and I'm not sure what 8 will be); I wouldn't be surprised if that affects things, as detailed design is handled by the contractors.

[pderocco]

The part that will be torn down still has interstate shields, but with no number in them. Which raises the question: what's that going to be called until it's closed? It's not exactly a business route at this point.

I would think BL 81.  All-freeway business interstates are not without precedent (see: BL 80 in Sacramento), and it's not like the viaduct is going to be open to traffic much longer.  IIRC, it's due to close by the end of the year when the roundabout opens.

Sacramento is the only place I've seen that done, and it's always seemed stupid to me. But I see now that everything between I-690 and I-481 in North Syracuse is also going to be signed as I-90-BL, even though it's a full freeway. Wouldn't it make sense give it a 3di number, like I-181? Or is there discussion of someday pulling that down and turning it into a surface street too?

[Rothman]

The part that will be torn down still has interstate shields, but with no number in them. Which raises the question: what's that going to be called until it's closed? It's not exactly a business route at this point.

I would think BL 81.  All-freeway business interstates are not without precedent (see: BL 80 in Sacramento), and it's not like the viaduct is going to be open to traffic much longer.  IIRC, it's due to close by the end of the year when the roundabout opens.

Sacramento is the only place I've seen that done, and it's always seemed stupid to me. But I see now that everything between I-690 and I-481 in North Syracuse is also going to be signed as I-90-BL, even though it's a full freeway. Wouldn't it make sense give it a 3di number, like I-181? Or is there discussion of someday pulling that down and turning it into a surface street too?

There is no I-90BL.

It is far too late for the 3di designation. 

[cu2010]

I can also confirm that all exit signage in Jefferson County has been changed, including on Wellesley Island.  Well, all except this sign, but with how much it's peeled, who can tell?

There was one southbound sign for old Exit 46 that remained the last time I went through; has that been changed and/or entirely replaced?

It's too bad they didn't use the opportunity to outright replace many of the signs from the early 2010s which are badly peeling and in need of replacement...of course, they only just replaced this sign after being knocked down several years ago, and, in true R7 style, the replacement sign is awful.

[vdeane]

Sacramento is the only place I've seen that done, and it's always seemed stupid to me. But I see now that everything between I-690 and I-481 in North Syracuse is also going to be signed as I-90-BL, even though it's a full freeway. Wouldn't it make sense give it a 3di number, like I-181? Or is there discussion of someday pulling that down and turning it into a surface street too?

As someone who has been less than enthused with the interstate business loops in much of the rest of the country, something like BL 81 that is freeway at both ends but will have a surface street segment (see also: BL 376 - even better because it facilitates traffic for Moon Cargo Service) to be easier to deal with.  That said, I would have personally preferred a 3di for the freeway north of I-690 (with a state route for the remainder of BL 81), however I suspect FHWA would have required a full interchange with I-690 were that to be the case, and the two missing ramps would have required significant ROW takings to build.

There was one southbound sign for old Exit 46 that remained the last time I went through; has that been changed and/or entirely replaced?

I didn't obsessively stare at every service sign (I didn't even realize the one I linked still said 48 until going over my photos), but none of my photos over that stretch show anything for 46; all say 157.

[pderocco]

Sacramento is the only place I've seen that done, and it's always seemed stupid to me. But I see now that everything between I-690 and I-481 in North Syracuse is also going to be signed as I-90-BL, even though it's a full freeway. Wouldn't it make sense give it a 3di number, like I-181? Or is there discussion of someday pulling that down and turning it into a surface street too?

As someone who has been less than enthused with the interstate business loops in much of the rest of the country, something like BL 81 that is freeway at both ends but will have a surface street segment (see also: BL 376 - even better because it facilitates traffic for Moon Cargo Service) to be easier to deal with.  That said, I would have personally preferred a 3di for the freeway north of I-690 (with a state route for the remainder of BL 81), however I suspect FHWA would have required a full interchange with I-690 were that to be the case, and the two missing ramps would have required significant ROW takings to build.

I agree that those missing ramps are inconvenient, but why would FHWA require them to be added now, when the road has existed for a long time as a major 2di without them?

[kalvado]

Sacramento is the only place I've seen that done, and it's always seemed stupid to me. But I see now that everything between I-690 and I-481 in North Syracuse is also going to be signed as I-90-BL, even though it's a full freeway. Wouldn't it make sense give it a 3di number, like I-181? Or is there discussion of someday pulling that down and turning it into a surface street too?

As someone who has been less than enthused with the interstate business loops in much of the rest of the country, something like BL 81 that is freeway at both ends but will have a surface street segment (see also: BL 376 - even better because it facilitates traffic for Moon Cargo Service) to be easier to deal with.  That said, I would have personally preferred a 3di for the freeway north of I-690 (with a state route for the remainder of BL 81), however I suspect FHWA would have required a full interchange with I-690 were that to be the case, and the two missing ramps would have required significant ROW takings to build.

I agree that those missing ramps are inconvenient, but why would FHWA require them to be added now, when the road has existed for a long time as a major 2di without them?

" Grandfathering" is a very powerful thing. Magic tends to vanish once there is a big project going on.
On a similar note, I know of at least 3 items about my home which are OK and not really an issue as is, but would add a few grands each to any major electric work on the building.

[Rothman]

Sacramento is the only place I've seen that done, and it's always seemed stupid to me. But I see now that everything between I-690 and I-481 in North Syracuse is also going to be signed as I-90-BL, even though it's a full freeway. Wouldn't it make sense give it a 3di number, like I-181? Or is there discussion of someday pulling that down and turning it into a surface street too?

As someone who has been less than enthused with the interstate business loops in much of the rest of the country, something like BL 81 that is freeway at both ends but will have a surface street segment (see also: BL 376 - even better because it facilitates traffic for Moon Cargo Service) to be easier to deal with.  That said, I would have personally preferred a 3di for the freeway north of I-690 (with a state route for the remainder of BL 81), however I suspect FHWA would have required a full interchange with I-690 were that to be the case, and the two missing ramps would have required significant ROW takings to build.

I agree that those missing ramps are inconvenient, but why would FHWA require them to be added now, when the road has existed for a long time as a major 2di without them?

Frankly, I'm not sure what FHWA's thinking was in not requiring the missing moves in the end.  Early on, there was a lot of discussion about including them.

Have to say that since the NY Division got DOGE'd, I wonder if they would have been more strict on the issue nowadays.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[vdeane]

I agree that those missing ramps are inconvenient, but why would FHWA require them to be added now, when the road has existed for a long time as a major 2di without them?

The interchange was built back when FHWA didn't worry so much about whether interchanges offered all movements or not.  Times have changed.  FHWA now wants interchanges to be complete, especially for interstate/interstate junctions.  Note that the viaduct alternative included the missing movements, and even older versions of the boulevard did too.

Stuff that was built under older standards gets grandfathered in until the next major reconstruction project, then it needs to be updated.  This also goes for redesignations - NY had to complete the Kamikaze Curve project before I-86 could be signed on the I-81 overlap (it still isn't for a few miles west of there), and US 15 had to switch to mile-based exit numbers as part of I-99 being designated.

of course, they only just replaced this sign after being knocked down several years ago, and, in true R7 style, the replacement sign is awful.

It certainly is interesting.

Frankly, I'm not sure what FHWA's thinking was in not requiring the missing moves in the end.  Early on, there was a lot of discussion about including them.

Have to say that since the NY Division got DOGE'd, I wonder if they would have been more strict on the issue nowadays.

I'm curious how far the project would have gotten under current FHWA had it not already begun construction.  Sean Duffy's opinions are very similar to certain users here with respect to not wanting to see reductions in vehicular capacity, regardless of traffic counts.

(personal opinion)

[pderocco]

I agree that those missing ramps are inconvenient, but why would FHWA require them to be added now, when the road has existed for a long time as a major 2di without them?

The interchange was built back when FHWA didn't worry so much about whether interchanges offered all movements or not.  Times have changed.  FHWA now wants interchanges to be complete, especially for interstate/interstate junctions.  Note that the viaduct alternative included the missing movements, and even older versions of the boulevard did too.

Stuff that was built under older standards gets grandfathered in until the next major reconstruction project, then it needs to be updated.  This also goes for redesignations

So the loophole that allows them not to add the ramps is that renumbering I-81 as I-81-BL isn't considered a redesignation?

[vdeane]

So the loophole that allows them not to add the ramps is that renumbering I-81 as I-81-BL isn't considered a redesignation?

Not as an interstate.  BL 81 is not an interstate and therefore doesn't need to meet interstate standards.

[Rothman]

So the loophole that allows them not to add the ramps is that renumbering I-81 as I-81-BL isn't considered a redesignation?

Not as an interstate.  BL 81 is not an interstate and therefore doesn't need to meet interstate standards.

I'm still wondering about FHWA's own rationale here, at least as it was...but not wondering strongly enough to do what would be needed to dig into that.

[Flyer78]

https://www.localsyr.com/news/future-of-81/i-481-to-i-81/amp/

Looks like the designation change is approved

[Rothman]

https://www.localsyr.com/news/future-of-81/i-481-to-i-81/amp/

Looks like the designation change is approved now formally announced by Gov. Hochul after previous FHWA rule passage

FTFY. ;D

[The Ghostbuster]

It's probably too early to do a R.I.P. Interstate 481. I'll wait until the rerouted Interstate 81 and Business 81 designations are fully signposted to give Interstate 481's obituary.