There's a lot of debate in Syracuse, NY, right now about whether to chop down the elevated expressway of I-81 through downtown. Here's a roundup of reactions so far:
> There's a lot of debate in Syracuse, NY, right now about whether to > chop down the elevated expressway of I-81 through downtown. Here's a > roundup of reactions so far:
There's valid points from those who say the viaduct has created blight underneath and is a pedestrian nightmare. But at the same time, that is a very real through-traffic and to/from downtown traffic stream that isn't going to go away. A tunnel or depressed freeway has benefits that far outweigh an elevated route. Though it will cost $$$$ $ to get it done, NYSDOT should seriously consider depressing or tunneling both 81 and 690.
Another thing to consider: if DestinyUSA takes off, traffic will increase even more. And 690 can't handle the load if 81 is removed.
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:47:29 -0800 (PST), in misc.transport.road bcubbi...@gmail.com wrote in <7aaa6859-8e1c-4536-9af8-b9b5be654...@s27g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>There's a lot of debate in Syracuse, NY, right now about whether to >chop down the elevated expressway of I-81 through downtown. Here's a >roundup of reactions so far:
The best (through town, not riverbank) urban freeway that I have seen is Philly's Vine Street Expressway. It has a very sensibly small impact of space and sound on the city while still managing to deliver a tolerable amount of capacity. I know little about Syracuse, but I cannot see how an elevated expressway can be good for it or even necessary. If it has to be replaced and a freeway needs to go through the area, a depressed freeway would be my first choice.
> There's a lot of debate in Syracuse, NY, right now about whether to > chop down the elevated expressway of I-81 through downtown. Here's a > roundup of reactions so far:
The only way that *removing* the elevated I-81 from downtown Syracuse could be made remotely acceptable, from a traffic POV, would be to construct the SW segment of I-481 (or whatever it would be numbered).
> The best (through town, not riverbank) urban freeway that I have seen is > Philly's Vine Street Expressway. It has a very sensibly small impact of > space and sound on the city while still managing to deliver a tolerable > amount of capacity.
I question whether the amount of capacity is "tolerable", as most of it is only 4 lanes (2 each way), which is very small for a crosstown freeway in a city the size of Philadelphia. The original plan was for 6 lanes (3 each way) throughout.
The original Vine Street had 10 lanes on 4 separate roadways east of 16th Street, and the depressed freeway was built on the location of the inner roadways.
> I know little about Syracuse, but I cannot see how > an elevated expressway can be good for it or even necessary. If it has > to be replaced and a freeway needs to go through the area, a depressed > freeway would be my first choice.
> On Dec 29, 9:33 pm, "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...@comcast.net> wrote: > > I know little about Syracuse, but I cannot see how > > an elevated expressway can be good for it or even necessary. If it has > > to be replaced and a freeway needs to go through the area, a depressed > > freeway would be my first choice.
> How many lanes does this segment of I-81 have?
4 through lanes on the viaduct itself, plus auxiliary lanes on either end feeding outward (to I-690 to the north and to I-481 to the south).
One problem I've long noted: at the north end of the viaduct, southbound I-81 only has one continuous through lane. But even with that issue, traffic flows fairly well throughout the day...only during morning rush hour is there anything I'd consider congestion, and in that southbound direction the congestion is north of the viaduct instead of on the viaduct itself.
>> The best (through town, not riverbank) urban freeway that I have seen is >> Philly's Vine Street Expressway. It has a very sensibly small impact of >> space and sound on the city while still managing to deliver a tolerable >> amount of capacity.
>I question whether the amount of capacity is "tolerable", as most of it >is only 4 lanes (2 each way), which is very small for a crosstown >freeway in a city the size of Philadelphia. The original plan was for >6 lanes (3 each way) throughout.
I agree that three through lanes each direction are needed on Vine.
>The original Vine Street had 10 lanes on 4 separate roadways east of >16th Street, and the depressed freeway was built on the location of the >inner roadways.
>> I know little about Syracuse, but I cannot see how >> an elevated expressway can be good for it or even necessary. If it has >> to be replaced and a freeway needs to go through the area, a depressed >> freeway would be my first choice.
> There's valid points from those who say the viaduct has created blight > underneath and is a pedestrian nightmare. But at the same time, that > is a very real through-traffic and to/from downtown traffic stream > that isn't going to go away. A tunnel or depressed freeway has > benefits that far outweigh an elevated route. Though it will cost $$$$ > $ to get it done, NYSDOT should seriously consider depressing or > tunneling both 81 and 690.
I would settle for just making decent interchanges on IH81 and IH690 so you aren't having to do wierd maneuvers on surface streets to get from one road to the other. (i.e. to get from the airport to NY5 and the western suburbs, you have to take IH81 S to the Carusel Mall exit, make your way to Bear St to get to IH690W to NY695 to NY5)
> Another thing to consider: if DestinyUSA takes off, traffic will > increase even more. And 690 can't handle the load if 81 is removed.
When I was up there last July, My relations were telling me about Destiny and all the steel I-beams that were sitting in stacks along Hiawatha Bl. They took me past them to and from the airport and there were these signs that said, "some see steel, we see jobs." (I'll have to dig into my archives and see if I have any pics of that and from under the viaduct that makes up IH81) I was like, "I see a huge asset sitting there gathering rust and not generating any revenue." Looking at the grandiose plans that they have for Destiny, I have to wonder who was smoking what to come up with that idea (they apparently have never seen a Syracuse winter) and where I can get my hands on some.
-- "What do you call someone who has been in a coma for 6 years? Mr. President" --Jay Leno, 8/3/07
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:44:55 -0500, in misc.transport.road necromancer <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_nospam_noway.org> wrote in <MPG.21e0fa5b6bab60dd98a...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>:
>> There's valid points from those who say the viaduct has created blight >> underneath and is a pedestrian nightmare. But at the same time, that >> is a very real through-traffic and to/from downtown traffic stream >> that isn't going to go away. A tunnel or depressed freeway has >> benefits that far outweigh an elevated route. Though it will cost $$$$ >> $ to get it done, NYSDOT should seriously consider depressing or >> tunneling both 81 and 690.
>I would settle for just making decent interchanges on IH81 and IH690 so >you aren't having to do wierd maneuvers on surface streets to get from >one road to the other. (i.e. to get from the airport to NY5 and the >western suburbs, you have to take IH81 S to the Carusel Mall exit, make >your way to Bear St to get to IH690W to NY695 to NY5)
>> Another thing to consider: if DestinyUSA takes off, traffic will >> increase even more. And 690 can't handle the load if 81 is removed.
>When I was up there last July, My relations were telling me about >Destiny and all the steel I-beams that were sitting in stacks along >Hiawatha Bl. They took me past them to and from the airport and there >were these signs that said, "some see steel, we see jobs." (I'll have to >dig into my archives and see if I have any pics of that and from under >the viaduct that makes up IH81) I was like, "I see a huge asset sitting >there gathering rust and not generating any revenue." Looking at the >grandiose plans that they have for Destiny, I have to wonder who was >smoking what to come up with that idea (they apparently have never seen >a Syracuse winter) and where I can get my hands on some.
How much did DestinyUSA get Syracuse and New York State to kick in for this?
bcubbi...@gmail.com wrote: > There's a lot of debate in Syracuse, NY, right now about whether to > chop down the elevated expressway of I-81 through downtown. Here's a > roundup of reactions so far:
First, I'm no "expert," but having lived in metro Syracuse (Liverpool actually) during the early 1980s when I was just a kid I do have opinions on the area and its highways.
It almost goes without saying that completely removing I-81 from downtown Syracuse would be a very stupid choice. I don't know where the political energy is coming from on lobbying for the removal of I-81 to "unite downtown." Perhaps it's a few Utopian pie in the sky dreamers on the Syracuse University campus hoping the I-81 ROW gets converted into parkland and bike paths for their own use.
Unfortunately, there's a fairly good chance that elevated chunk of I-81 could be removed and not replaced.
The elevated freeway is OLD. I don't know when it was built, but it didn't look new when I lived in the area and that was over 25 years ago. If it isn't already a major maintenance and safety issue headache the old elevated highway is guaranteed to become one very soon.
A serious traffic bottleneck occurs when I-81 goes elevated and crosses Burt Street. It's reduced from 6 lanes to 4. There's lots of businesses, apartment buildings, parking lots, billboards and more built right up next to the road. That leaves little room for expansion.
An obvious solution would be building a new highway in a trench or creating a cut and cover tunnel. I think either solution should feature at least 4 lanes in each direction. The problem is you can't build such a think underneath that existing elevated structure. Long distance traffic would have to be diverted onto I-481 for a number of years while that old segment of I-81 is demolished, removed and then rebuilt. The problem is that once the old I-81 is removed, anti roads people would see an opening to block any new road construction with all sorts of stunts.
I-40 in downtown Oklahoma City is getting rebuilt on a new alignment. Downtown Syracuse doesn't offer the same option. The Syracuse University Campus and Oakwood-Morningside Cemetary use much of the land immediately East of the highway. There is densely packed residential homes and apartments transitioning into office buildings and office towers to the West. Any new I-81 rebuild would have to happen in the same location.
This situation in Syracuse has me thinking of other similar aging elevated steel highway structures in other cities. I shudder to think just how daunting a task it will be when the time comes to rebuild the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. Talk about nightmare projects! Yeesh!
> >I question whether the amount of capacity is "tolerable", as most of it > >is only 4 lanes (2 each way), which is very small for a crosstown > >freeway in a city the size of Philadelphia. The original plan was for > >6 lanes (3 each way) throughout.
> I agree that three through lanes each direction are needed on Vine.
The highway is depressed with high retaining walls, so they pretty much locked in the current width, as it would be extremely expensive to widen the highway.
The only way that *removing* the elevated I-81 from downtown Syracuse could be made remotely acceptable, from a traffic POV, would be to construct the SW segment of I-481 (or whatever it would be numbered).
Onondaga Hill is a big barrier in building a freeway around SW Syracuse. If you were to do it, it would have to be built starting at Lafayette or further south because the Onondaga Indian Nation sits between Lafayette and Syracuse and there is no way that they will allow a freeway though their territory. The costs of dealing with the hills alone would be very expensive.
The other problem is where would it end west of Syracuse? The eastern end of the NY 5 Camillus bypass was supposed to be extended south of W Genesee St in Fairmount where it ends now but I don't see a freeway being plowed through neighborhoods in the towns of Geddes and Onondaga, or through the city of Syracuse, to meet up with the current intersection of 481 being approved either. It could meet up with the western end of the Camillus bypass, or continue to the Thruway but that isn't any better than taking 481 to 690 and coming back across town IMO.
The last point is that it is a very pleasant scenic drive coming into Syracuse from the south and southwest. There is no development on 81 south of Syracuse and the reason is that the Onondaga Nation has been a buffer from all of that. That is why all the development on 81 went north. It is a very pretty drive on NY 175 from Syracuse, once you get out of the city, to Marcellus and Skaneateles. There is some development on Onondaga Hill where 173 and 175 meet but it's nothing like what would come if a freeway was built out there. I was stunned the last time I was up there (2005) to see that the historic Onondaga Town Hall was demolished so that Velasko Rd and Makyes Rd could meet at NY 175 at a single point for a traffic light. There are a lot of new houses up there but I didn't notice any commercial development. My dad grew up on Onondaga Hill and I had family that lived up there from 1955 to 1997.
I can't see building a southwest bypass only because of 81 being removed from downtown and there aren't enough people out that way to justify it either. I don't see any easy answer to fixing 81 though downtown Syracuse.
> The last point is that it is a very pleasant scenic drive coming into > Syracuse from the south and southwest. There is no development on 81 south > of Syracuse and the reason is that the Onondaga Nation has been a buffer > from all of that. That is why all the development on 81 went north. It is > a very pretty drive on NY 175 from Syracuse, once you get out of the city, > to Marcellus and Skaneateles.
I'll second that. Particularly in the Marcellus and Skaneatlas areas. Next time I'm up that way, there will be alot of road geek videos for me to make.
> There is some development on Onondaga Hill > where 173 and 175 meet but it's nothing like what would come if a freeway > was built out there. I was stunned the last time I was up there (2005) to > see that the historic Onondaga Town Hall was demolished so that Velasko Rd > and Makyes Rd could meet at NY 175 at a single point for a traffic light. > There are a lot of new houses up there but I didn't notice any commercial > development. My dad grew up on Onondaga Hill and I had family that lived up > there from 1955 to 1997.
A lot of that area is starting to develop. Much like the Sterling area here in Glynn COunty, GA (about 10 miles NW of Brunswick, GA) is building up. And just like with Sterling, I can't imagine who is buying these houses and where they ae getting their money from....
> I can't see building a southwest bypass only because of 81 being removed > from downtown and there aren't enough people out that way to justify it > either. I don't see any easy answer to fixing 81 though downtown Syracuse.
About the only solution I see that would not involve a lot of demolition of surrounding buildings and a lot of time and money would be to extend the current IH481 from the Thruway north back to IH81, re-designate that as IH81 (funneling the through traffic going to/from Canada around the city) and demolish the viaduct through downtown, leaving two spurs off IH81 (say, IH381 from the south and IH581 from the north) to take local traffic into the city. Though I doubt that the powers that be running DestiNY would go for that idea.
In article <MPG.21e1c39fb3482cf598a...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
necromancer <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_nospam_noway.org> wrote: > About the only solution I see that would not involve a lot of demolition > of surrounding buildings and a lot of time and money would be to extend > the current IH481 from the Thruway north back to IH81...
What extension is necessary? I-481 already runs north from the Thruway to I-81 (and beyond, as NY 481).
> In article <MPG.21e1c39fb3482cf598a...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, > necromancer <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_nospam_noway.org> wrote:
> > About the only solution I see that would not involve a lot of demolition > > of surrounding buildings and a lot of time and money would be to extend > > the current IH481 from the Thruway north back to IH81...
> What extension is necessary? I-481 already runs north from the Thruway > to I-81 (and beyond, as NY 481).
On Dec 30, 1:59 am, Bobby H <nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
> bcubbi...@gmail.com wrote: > > There's a lot of debate in Syracuse, NY, right now about whether to > > chop down the elevated expressway of I-81 through downtown. Here's a > > roundup of reactions so far:
> First, I'm no "expert," but having lived in metro Syracuse (Liverpool > actually) during the early 1980s when I was just a kid I do have > opinions on the area and its highways.
I'm not an expert on life and traffic in Syracuse either, but from a map of the city, it appears that Syracuse lacks decent north-south arterials to handle through traffic.
> It almost goes without saying that completely removing I-81 from > downtown Syracuse would be a very stupid choice. I don't know where the > political energy is coming from on lobbying for the removal of I-81 to > "unite downtown." Perhaps it's a few Utopian pie in the sky dreamers on > the Syracuse University campus hoping the I-81 ROW gets converted into > parkland and bike paths for their own use.
Probably the same type of out of touch with reality dreamers that think removing I-70 between the PSB and a new Mississippi River bridge in St. Louis would be a great idea.
This is New York. If the same brain trust of activists, politicians, regulators, judges and media outlets that have tied themselves in knots about replacing the Peace Bridge, replacing the Tappan Zee Bridge, widening 287 (oops, I mean never widening 287), etc. are running this process, then the elevated section of I-81 will stand in its present form as long as the pyramids at Luxor have stood (or until the road finally falls down due to neglect). .
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:47:29 -0800 (PST), bcubbi...@gmail.com wrote: >There's a lot of debate in Syracuse, NY, right now about whether to >chop down the elevated expressway of I-81 through downtown. Here's a >roundup of reactions so far:
>>> About the only solution I see that would not involve a lot of demolition >>> of surrounding buildings and a lot of time and money would be to extend >>> the current IH481 from the Thruway north back to IH81...
>> What extension is necessary? I-481 already runs north from the Thruway >> to I-81 (and beyond, as NY 481).
> It sure is. My mistake.
Plus, northbound traffic approaching the southern Interstate 481 interchange on I-81 is encouraged to take I-481 as a bypass around Syracuse. The control city for 481 NORTH is DeWitt, I think it should also include Watertown/Canada.
Currently the two signs say "Syracuse Area Exits 17-28" and "Bypass for Thru Traffic use (481) NORTH". Personally, I think it should say "To Bypass Downtown Syracuse use (481) NORTH". I think "Bypass for Thru Traffic" might be a little too much like traffic engineer-speak.
On Dec 29 2007, 9:47 pm, bcubbi...@gmail.com wrote:
> There's a lot of debate in Syracuse, NY, right now about whether to > chop down the elevated expressway of I-81 through downtown. Here's a > roundup of reactions so far:
Curley is correct. Due to the onondagas, topography, the expensive housing on onondaga hill, and the land originally bought by NY for the SW link was sold to developers and businesses, that section of 481 will never be built. Putting 81 in a trench is not cost effective or a good idea. Groundwater is relatively high (the city was built on a swamp) so a series of pumps would have to be installed to keep pumping out the groundwater and any other precipitation (rain, snow, etc.) This region uses a lot of salt so the pumps would have to be maintained quite frequently ($$$$$$$).. also with more and more stringent water quality regulations, the water would have to be "treated" before being sent out to Onondaga Lake which in itself is a being put under the political and environmental microscope. Most of the folks advocating the removal of I 81 downtown know little or nothing about highways or use common sense. Trenching the road would also cause problems with existing interchanges with other boulevards and I-690. That could mean the taking of additional properties.. some historic, and who wants to do that? Did I mention that this would unecessarily be very expensive?? So pays for such ideas? Well, the folks here are already complaining about taxes and the high cost of fuel anyway. So what's the answer? In order to justify the project, the existing portion should be replaced with a more modern pre-cast design. Incentives to take I-481 may be necessary if you Toll the I-81 segment (High Occupancy Toll) south of I-690 to I481. This gives people the incentive to carpool, use hybrids, and/or motorcycles and reduce the cueing up University Hill. Plus that reduces the amount of emissions therefore improving air quality. Vehicles heading North then West would take I-481, go through a "Free Zone" on the Thruway since all the booths would be removed between interchanges 39 and 34A. High Speed Open Road Tolling would be set up West and East of those interchanges. This also allows for a free flow of traffic between I-90 and the rest of the interchanges (once again, safer exiting and entering, plus better air quality) Forcing traffic from one side of the city to the other and putting other citizens at risk is foolish and iresponsible, but those ideas are coming mostly from politicos and "self appointed princes and pincesses of the city" who usually if not always lack a shred of common sense.
> Curley is correct. > Due to the onondagas, topography, the expensive housing on onondaga > hill, and the land originally bought by NY for the SW link was sold to > developers and businesses, that section of 481 will never be built. > Putting 81 in a trench is not cost effective or a good idea. > Groundwater is relatively high (the city was built on a swamp) so a > series of pumps would have to be installed to keep pumping out the > groundwater and any other precipitation (rain, snow, etc.) This region > uses a lot of salt so the pumps would have to be maintained quite > frequently ($$$$$$$).. also with more and more stringent water quality > regulations, the water would have to be "treated" before being sent > out to Onondaga Lake which in itself is a being put under the > political and environmental microscope. > Most of the folks advocating the removal of I 81 downtown know little > or nothing about highways or use common sense. > Trenching the road would also cause problems with existing > interchanges with other boulevards and I-690. That could mean the > taking of additional properties.. some historic, and who wants to do > that? > Did I mention that this would unecessarily be very expensive?? So pays > for such ideas? Well, the folks here are already complaining about > taxes and the high cost of fuel anyway. > So what's the answer? > In order to justify the project, the existing portion should be > replaced with a more modern pre-cast design. Incentives to take I-481 > may be necessary if you Toll the I-81 segment (High Occupancy Toll) > south of I-690 to I481. This gives people the incentive to carpool, > use hybrids, and/or motorcycles and reduce the cueing up University > Hill. Plus that reduces the amount of emissions therefore improving > air quality. Vehicles heading North then West would take I-481, go > through a "Free Zone" on the Thruway since all the booths would be > removed between interchanges 39 and 34A. High Speed Open Road Tolling > would be set up West and East of those interchanges. This also allows > for a free flow of traffic between I-90 and the rest of the > interchanges (once again, safer exiting and entering, plus better air > quality) > Forcing traffic from one side of the city to the other and putting > other citizens at risk is foolish and iresponsible, but those ideas > are coming mostly from politicos and "self appointed princes and > pincesses of the city" who usually if not always lack a shred of > common sense.
Changing grades is a ridiculously huge undertaking. Look at the Big Dig. Plus, with water table problems and a lot of precipitation, it gets even worse.
As far as viaducts being pedestrian unfriendly, I think that's a terrible assertion. What other type of road would have continuous access across? That's not even a big viaduct, so it shouldn't be scary. We have some 10 lane ones in the Bay Area and that's a slightly more valid gripe then.
This sounds like the people who advocate removing the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle and replacing it with a street. Yes, it worked on the Embarcadero in SF as well as the Central Fwy (sort of). The reason it worked is that neither of those connected to anything.
> Curley is correct. > Due to the onondagas, topography, the expensive housing on onondaga > hill, and the land originally bought by NY for the SW link was sold to > developers and businesses, that section of 481 will never be built. > Putting 81 in a trench is not cost effective or a good idea. > Groundwater is relatively high (the city was built on a swamp) so a > series of pumps would have to be installed to keep pumping out the > groundwater and any other precipitation (rain, snow, etc.) This region > uses a lot of salt so the pumps would have to be maintained quite > frequently ($$$$$$$).. also with more and more stringent water quality > regulations, the water would have to be "treated" before being sent > out to Onondaga Lake which in itself is a being put under the > political and environmental microscope. > Most of the folks advocating the removal of I 81 downtown know little > or nothing about highways or use common sense. > Trenching the road would also cause problems with existing > interchanges with other boulevards and I-690. That could mean the > taking of additional properties.. some historic, and who wants to do > that? > Did I mention that this would unecessarily be very expensive?? So pays > for such ideas? Well, the folks here are already complaining about > taxes and the high cost of fuel anyway. > So what's the answer? > In order to justify the project, the existing portion should be > replaced with a more modern pre-cast design. Incentives to take I-481 > may be necessary if you Toll the I-81 segment (High Occupancy Toll) > south of I-690 to I481. This gives people the incentive to carpool, > use hybrids, and/or motorcycles and reduce the cueing up University > Hill. Plus that reduces the amount of emissions therefore improving > air quality. Vehicles heading North then West would take I-481, go > through a "Free Zone" on the Thruway since all the booths would be > removed between interchanges 39 and 34A. High Speed Open Road Tolling > would be set up West and East of those interchanges. This also allows > for a free flow of traffic between I-90 and the rest of the > interchanges (once again, safer exiting and entering, plus better air > quality) > Forcing traffic from one side of the city to the other and putting > other citizens at risk is foolish and iresponsible, but those ideas > are coming mostly from politicos and "self appointed princes and > pincesses of the city" who usually if not always lack a shred of > common sense.
Just like advocting toll roads to raise costs to the public, right? Are you a libertarian too?
> Just like advocting toll roads to raise costs to the public, right? Are > you a libertarian too?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, it's not a matter of being a libertarian or not.. I'd rather see the highway be replaced by a more modern structure. However, every project costs money, so if you want to dedicate funds to a particular segment, then a toll, or an incentive not to pay a toll (reduce traffic carpooling or alternative routing) would pay for it. Now, if you want to go the "old fashioned" way and pay through fuel taxes or some other revenue, fine.. but it is still going to cost you no matter what you do.
> Just like advocting toll roads to raise costs to the public, right? Are > you a libertarian too?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, it's not a matter of being a libertarian or not.. I'd rather see the highway be replaced by a more modern structure. However, every project costs money, so if you want to dedicate funds to a particular segment, then a toll, or an incentive not to pay a toll (reduce traffic carpooling or alternative routing) would pay for it. Now, if you want to go the "old fashioned" way and pay through fuel taxes or some other revenue, fine.. but it is still going to cost you no matter what you do.
-----
Given the economic mess upstate NY faces, further discouraging people from moving there or locating jobs there, what is the point?
|
