Development in and Around Syracuse Discussion | Page 4 | Syracusefan.com

Development in and Around Syracuse Discussion

FrancoPizza said:
Regardless of the merits of the tunnel, Trump is going to rain fed infrastructure $$$ from the sky. A $3B tunnel may or may not be practical, but it would trigger a huge demand for construction jobs in the city for several years at least. It's not a permanent job situation, but then again, very few are. And if the fed is giving away "free" money, we have to take it or some other city will.
Expand...
The tunnel would be a colossal waste of money. There are many better ways to spend it if you want $3B in construction jobs.
 
OttoMets said:
Maybe one difference - Parsons Brinckerhoff could be considered a somewhat partial consultant, given the work they do on similar projects. I made a joke last week about this kind of firm doing the study. In a perfect world, a more independent actor would conduct the study and point out what an unnecessary, destructive, and wasteful idea a tunnel is.
Expand...
Fly Rodder said:
I work in engineering/consulting; billable hours cost money. The fee isn't the issue, it's that they're paying that much to do pretty much the same job over again for no other reason than some pols really didn't like the outcome of the first one. 90% of that report is going to be cut and paste from the previous one. I could see a re-do if the tunnel proponents put forth a new conceptual design that improved on the original alternatives and met all the substantive requirements or they identified innovative technologies to either reduce the cost or construction issues that plague a tunnel alternative. AFAIK, they have done neither. It's just a do-over.
Expand...

Also in Engineering/Consulting: yeah how would you like that fee on your books $2m for cut and paste yeah that will help the bottom line. I think ottomets is right though parsons is probably there for the tunnel review they do a ton of municipal tunneling jobs...#7 subway extension to name one huge one. There are definately challenges with the tunnel option.

If they did go with a tunnel Ive always thought that a drilled soldier or slurry wall approach where you build the walls and roof of the tunnel at grade before excavating below with standard non tbm equipment makes sense for the soil conditions. Coastal cities with similar soil conditions sometimes use this method.

Id also put it under Townsend street with the walls on/off ramps installed in grassy areas outside the current roadway. You could close one block at a time to install the roof framing then excavate below the roof with active traffic above. Least impact to 81 (torn down after new is complete) and city traffic flow is adjustable around sections of Townsend. Many streets that used to cross Townsend before orig 81 construction no longer do, limiting crossflow costs that force weekend/offpeak work to Adams Harrison genesee and Erie.

I think this approach would also reduce cost of what they proposed as the tunnel budget originally.

Otherwise for the most part the other options make more sense for money. in a perrfect world where money was not part of it tunnel is great but if we don't have a way to pay for the tunnel were just spending time and escalation budget.

$2m please...
 
Ottoble said:
Also in Engineering/Consulting: yeah how would you like that fee on your books $2m for cut and paste yeah that will help the bottom line. I think ottomets is right though parsons is probably there for the tunnel review they do a ton of municipal tunneling jobs...#7 subway extension to name one huge one. There are definately challenges with the tunnel option.

If they did go with a tunnel Ive always thought that a drilled soldier or slurry wall approach where you build the walls and roof of the tunnel at grade before excavating below with standard non tbm equipment makes sense for the soil conditions. Coastal cities with similar soil conditions sometimes use this method.

Id also put it under Townsend street with the walls on/off ramps installed in grassy areas outside the current roadway. You could close one block at a time to install the roof framing then excavate below the roof with active traffic above. Least impact to 81 (torn down after new is complete) and city traffic flow is adjustable around sections of Townsend. Many streets that used to cross Townsend before orig 81 construction no longer do, limiting crossflow costs that force weekend/offpeak work to Adams Harrison genesee and Erie.

I think this approach would also reduce cost of what they proposed as the tunnel budget originally.

Otherwise for the most part the other options make more sense for money. in a perrfect world where money was not part of it tunnel is great but if we don't have a way to pay for the tunnel were just spending time and escalation budget.

$2m please...
Expand...

Appreciate the insight. How far down would the tunnel have to be dug so as to not affect the structures above it? Pretty far I'm guessing, right? 100 feet? More? Less?
 
Ottoble said:
Also in Engineering/Consulting: yeah how would you like that fee on your books $2m for cut and paste yeah that will help the bottom line. I think ottomets is right though parsons is probably there for the tunnel review they do a ton of municipal tunneling jobs...#7 subway extension to name one huge one. There are definately challenges with the tunnel option.

If they did go with a tunnel Ive always thought that a drilled soldier or slurry wall approach where you build the walls and roof of the tunnel at grade before excavating below with standard non tbm equipment makes sense for the soil conditions. Coastal cities with similar soil conditions sometimes use this method.

Id also put it under Townsend street with the walls on/off ramps installed in grassy areas outside the current roadway. You could close one block at a time to install the roof framing then excavate below the roof with active traffic above. Least impact to 81 (torn down after new is complete) and city traffic flow is adjustable around sections of Townsend. Many streets that used to cross Townsend before orig 81 construction no longer do, limiting crossflow costs that force weekend/offpeak work to Adams Harrison genesee and Erie.

I think this approach would also reduce cost of what they proposed as the tunnel budget originally.

Otherwise for the most part the other options make more sense for money. in a perrfect world where money was not part of it tunnel is great but if we don't have a way to pay for the tunnel were just spending time and escalation budget.

$2m please...
Expand...
Interesting.

Were the original tunnel estimates made with the expectation that boring machines would be used (as opposed to the cut and cover method/top down method it appears to me that you are talking about)?

Tunnel - Wikipedia

Cut-and-cover[edit]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb//f7/Paris_Metro_construction_03300288-3.jpg/220px-Paris_Metro_construction_03300288-3.jpg
Cut-and-cover construction of the Paris Métro in France
Cut-and-cover is a simple method of construction for shallow tunnels where a trench is excavated and roofed over with an overhead support system strong enough to carry the load of what is to be built above the tunnel. Two basic forms of cut-and-cover tunnelling are available:

  • Bottom-up method: A trench is excavated, with ground support as necessary, and the tunnel is constructed in it. The tunnel may be of in situ concrete, precast concrete, precast arches, or corrugated steel arches; in early days brickwork was used. The trench is then carefully back-filled and the surface is reinstated.
  • Top-down method: Side support walls and capping beams are constructed from ground level by such methods as slurry walling or contiguous bored piling. Then a shallow excavation allows making the tunnel roof of precast beams or in situ concrete. The surface is then reinstated except for access openings. This allows early reinstatement of roadways, services and other surface features. Excavation then takes place under the permanent tunnel roof, and the base slab is constructed.
Shallow tunnels are often of the cut-and-cover type (if under water, of the immersed-tube type), while deep tunnels are excavated, often using a tunnelling shield. For intermediate levels, both methods are possible.

Large cut-and-cover boxes are often used for underground metro stations, such as Canary Wharf tube station in London. This construction form generally has two levels, which allows economical arrangements for ticket hall, station platforms, passenger access and emergency egress, ventilation and smoke control, staff rooms, and equipment rooms. The interior of Canary Wharf station has been likened to an underground cathedral, owing to the sheer size of the excavation. This contrasts with many traditional stations on London Underground, where bored tunnels were used for stations and passenger access. Nevertheless, the original parts of the London Underground network, the Metropolitan and District Railways, were constructed using cut-and-cover. These lines pre-dated electric traction and the proximity to the surface was useful to ventilate the inevitable smoke and steam.

A major disadvantage of cut-and-cover is the widespread disruption generated at the surface level during construction. This, and the availability of electric traction, brought about London Underground's switch to bored tunnels at a deeper level towards the end of the 19th century.

Boring machines[edit]
Main article: Tunnel boring machine

A workman is dwarfed by the tunnel boring machine used to excavate the Gotthard Base Tunnel (Switzerland), the world's longest.
Tunnel boring machines (TBMs) and associated back-up systems are used to highly automate the entire tunnelling process, reducing tunnelling costs. In certain predominantly urban applications, tunnel boring is viewed as quick and cost effective alternative to laying surface rails and roads. Expensive compulsory purchase of buildings and land, with potentially lengthy planning inquiries, is eliminated. Disadvantages of TBMs arise from their usually large size - the difficulty of transporting the large TBM to the site of tunnel construction, or (alternatively) the high cost of assembling the TBM on-site, often within the confines of the tunnel being constructed.

There are a variety of TBM designs that can operate in a variety of conditions, from hard rock to soft water-bearing ground. Some types of TBMs, the bentonite slurry and earth-pressure balance machines, have pressurised compartments at the front end, allowing them to be used in difficult conditions below the water table. This pressurizes the ground ahead of the TBM cutter head to balance the water pressure. The operators work in normal air pressure behind the pressurised compartment, but may occasionally have to enter that compartment to renew or repair the cutters. This requires special precautions, such as local ground treatment or halting the TBM at a position free from water. Despite these difficulties, TBMs are now preferred over the older method of tunnelling in compressed air, with an air lock/decompression chamber some way back from the TBM, which required operators to work in high pressure and go through decompression procedures at the end of their shifts, much like deep-sea divers.

In February 2010, Aker Wirth delivered a TBM to Switzerland, for the expansion of the Linth–Limmern Power Stations located south of Linthal in the canton of Glarus. The borehole has a diameter of 8.03 metres (26.3 ft).[9] The four TBMs used for excavating the 57-kilometre (35 mi) Gotthard Base Tunnel, in Switzerland, had a diameter of about 9 metres (30 ft). A larger TBM was built to bore the Green Heart Tunnel (Dutch: Tunnel Groene Hart) as part of the HSL-Zuid in the Netherlands, with a diameter of 14.87 metres (48.8 ft).[10] This in turn was superseded by the Madrid M30 ringroad, Spain, and the Chong Ming tunnels in Shanghai, China. All of these machines were built at least partly by Herrenknecht. As of August 2013, the world's largest TBM is "Big Bertha", a 57.5-foot (17.5 m) diameter machine built by Hitachi Zosen Corporation, which is digging the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement tunnel in Seattle, Washington (US).[11]
...
 
Parsons Brinckerhoff is looking for public input on the I81 project
http://www.i81independentstudy.com/
I-81 INDEPENDENT STUDY

"Dear Central New Yorkers:
WSP | PB has been engaged by New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) to provide an independent study and evaluation of underground options that may replace the I-81 Viaduct in Syracuse, New York. The scope of this independent study includes the feasibility of a tunnel, depressed highway or a combination of a community grid/tunnel or combination of a community grid/depressed highway...

Please tell us about the community context such as social and economic concerns, potential neighborhood or business impacts, as well as other regional issues you feel are relevant to analysis and development of underground concepts.

Please share with us any data, plans, studies, statistics, reports and other documentation regarding the underground concepts which have already been developed. We would appreciate it if you could provide our team with the source of any shared information and the date it was created.

We kindly request that this information be shared by April 7, 2017."

Via Mail to:
WSP | PB
I-81 Input
One Penn Plaza 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10119

Via Email to:
i81input@pbworld.com
 
shandeezy7 said:
Appreciate the insight. How far down would the tunnel have to be dug so as to not affect the structures above it? Pretty far I'm guessing, right? 100 feet? More? Less?
Expand...

Hey no problem its my everyday more than willing to share my thoughts as others with more SU sports insider knowledge do for me.


For depth its actually the opposite you want to be as shallow as is practical. In this case if you can be next to an adjacent buildings foundation instead of under it that is excellent you don't impact existing buildings as much. With a preinstalled top down cut and cover approach (see tomcats post right after yours)You could go under adjacent foundations a bit without a big problem because the wall goes in first.

General rule The deeper you go the more expensive it is excavation costs go up but also wall pressure from soil gets greater so your structure costs more and your roadway onramps and offramps get longer and more complicated. Ramp issue is also the case with the higher viaduct some people proposed.

I think when most people think interstate tunnel they think Holland Lincoln or Lehigh deep tunnels and that makes total sense those are the ones that get talked about. In this case Id reccomend thinking back to your last trip on the thruway. On the thruway you go under many of smaller roads that are up on bridges. Think of the tunnel I am describing as 500 of those briddges for smaller roads all right next to each other with the roadways unknowingly right above interstate traffic.

My feeling is with sliding the alignment to Townsend and using a top down approach the cost would have to come down to a more workable number than the one provided so far just by reducing phasing and interstate partial closure and economic impact costs that would come from rebuilding on the same alignment. And it actually connects to 81 better than the current alignment smoothing out corners and improving safety.

As I said still may not be cheaper but worth a look.
 
dooey139 said:
This is pretty interesting, DTrain Armory Square Syracuse – Doggie Daycare, Event Space, and more
Expand...

Hmm interesting. First I've seen of this. As far as I know, it's merely a concept. Don't think there is anything there or under construction currently. According to the plans on their website, it will be wedged into a space between S. Clinton Street, the railroad tracks and The Royce Residence building (formerly Clinton Plaza Apartments). I believe it will actually be up above the retaining wall pictured below in the current Google Street View of the area. It seems like a pretty small piece of land.

upload_2017-4-5_19-0-47.png
 
shandeezy7 said:
Hmm interesting. First I've seen of this. As far as I know, it's merely a concept. Don't think there is anything there or under construction currently. According to the plans on their website, it will be wedged into a space between S. Clinton Street, the railroad tracks and The Royce Residence building (formerly Clinton Plaza Apartments). I believe it will actually be up above the retaining wall pictured below in the current Google Street View of the area. It seems like a pretty small piece of land.

View attachment 94490
Expand...

For a different perspective, this appears to be the proposed area:

upload_2017-4-5_19-6-49.png
 
General20 said:
That's fascinating, and I never heard of it before. Do you know if that is something they want to make happen or something that is already done and ready to go?
Expand...

It's got city approvals; I think he's looking for financing but expects to get it done during this construction season.
 
OttoMets said:
It's got city approvals; I think he's looking for financing but expects to get it done during this construction season.
Expand...

I reached out to someone at Syracuse.com last night. First he'd heard of the project as well. He's going to give the developer a call and see what he can find out.
 
shandeezy7 said:
I reached out to someone at Syracuse.com last night. First he'd heard of the project as well. He's going to give the developer a call and see what he can find out.
Expand...

Funny, I thought they had someone dedicated to covering planning commission meetings. There was a hearing about a year ago; I'd be surprised if their City Hall reporter wasn't in attendance.
 
OttoMets said:
Funny, I thought they had someone dedicated to covering planning commission meetings. There was a hearing about a year ago; I'd be surprised if their City Hall reporter wasn't in attendance.
Expand...

Must have missed that meeting, I guess. I searched around a bit to see if I missed an article on it before reaching out. Couldn't find anything.
 
I drove past it yesterday and there are signs up at the site, i want to say construction equipment there too but that could be wrong. Zero publicity. It's in somewhat of a rough spot, both to get there and the surrounding properties, will be interesting to see how it goes
 

Similar threads

T
    • Like
Wide receivers 2025
3 4 5
Replies
100
Views
5K
OmahaCuse
O
Capt. Tuttle
    • Like
    • Love
Met Luke Carney today
Replies
18
Views
3K
bigmike
bigmike
T
Syracuse vs. UConn on ACCNX - Why no repeat on ACC Network
Replies
20
Views
590
Yeti
Yeti
DoubleDee
    • Like
    • Wow
    • Love
Why Can't We Have Nice Things? OT
Replies
22
Views
1K
VTAaron
V

Forum statistics

Threads
174,181
Messages
5,139,860
Members
6,110
Latest member
chhill

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
194
Guests online
1,501
Total visitors
1,695
Totals may include hidden visitors.
Top Bottom