Development in and Around Syracuse Discussion

[Capt. Tuttle]

Not to mention the massive upfront cost, the length of time it would take to construct, the concentration of air pollution that would have to be vented out somewhere and the demolition of 2 dozen+ buildings that are currently occupied and in fine condition, including a number of significant historic structures. I'm also not so sure that the tunnel option will have any exits in the university/hospital area, due to how wide the tunnel will need to be and how tight that space is there. Maybe I missed that in the proposal, though?

I think there would be surface access for local traffic.

 

[FrancoPizza]

I think there would be surface access for local traffic.

Exactly. The tunnel only needs a connection with 690. Everything else would be supported by the street grid. I wish they too a closer look at using West St as the new 81. They wouldn't be knocking down any historic structures on the west side that's for sure. It would be a community favor.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Do the tunnel proponents know about any of this? Probably not, because all they know is whatever BS Katko is spewing to them. The only positive thing a tunnel would do is it would get traffic coming from south of the city to the mall slightly easier. Anyone trying to travel through the city who is not an idiot would just take 481 around the city, bypassing any tolls and congestion.

From West, 690E to 481S back to 81S is longer than just 690E to 81S. It adds about 8 miles and 8-10 minutes on the trip. Would it be a huge cost of time or money? No, but it would be annoying and less convenient.

Not sure how well Dome traffic will work.
I think folks are romanticizing the grid as a panacea and some type of economic boon.
Not sure opening up the south side to direct access to campus is necessarily a good thing, but who knows.

I am not an engineer, architect, urban or traffic planner, and don't pretend to be. The whole science of the logistics behind all of this stuff fascinates me.

I am sure that 20 years from now people will be lamenting the choice that is made today as obviously wrong.

I have found in life that as a general rule, it is almost never a good idea to go cheaper, just because it is cheaper, but sometimes cheaper can be the better option.

Everyone who doesn't get their way will cry foul. Lawsuits will follow. My fellow lawyers will win out, in the end.

I just hope to be out of here not soon after this is all done, so it won't really impact me too much, one way or the other.

 

[OrangeinBoston]

Some years ago, we replaced an above-ground highway through Boston with a tunnel system. One of the best things to ever happen to the city.

 

[OttoMets]

From West, 690E to 481S back to 81S is longer than just 690E to 81S. It adds about 8 miles and 8-10 minutes on the trip. Would it be a huge cost of time or money? No, but it would be annoying and less convenient.

Not sure how well Dome traffic will work.
I think folks are romanticizing the grid as a panacea and some type of economic boon.
Not sure opening up the south side to direct access to campus is necessarily a good thing, but who knows.

I am not an engineer, architect, urban or traffic planner, and don't pretend to be. The whole science of the logistics behind all of this stuff fascinates me.

I am sure that 20 years from now people will be lamenting the choice that is made today as obviously wrong.

I have found in life that as a general rule, it is almost never a good idea to go cheaper, just because it is cheaper, but sometimes cheaper can be the better option.

Everyone who doesn't get their way will cry foul. Lawsuits will follow. My fellow lawyers will win out, in the end.

I just hope to be out of here not soon after this is all done, so it won't really impact me too much, one way or the other.

I agree with some of this. A grid won't be a panacea, cheaper for cheaper's sake is idiotic, and lawsuits are coming.

For motorists whose drive could get longer: this is an interesting question. Should it matter? I'm not offering an answer to that question, but it's worth discussing. To what extent should a billion-dollar transportation project be shaped by the prospect of X number of drivers facing an increase in miles traveled by Y with an added time delay of Z? To what extent should those who are saving miles and time cancel that out? And how does the economic activity/property value situation outweigh both of those considerations?

Regarding cheaper being better - I think this is a cynical (or politically expedient) ploy to appeal to a certain type of voter/politician who views everything in life through the prism of dollars and cents. I don't love it, but in this instance, I'm not complaining if it's effective. And, as you say, cheaper can be the better option, but not necessarily for that reason. (For a number of reasons, I think it is in this instance.)

University Hill vs. the South Side...this is like the "barrier" characterization. Those who don't have first-hand experience with the area don't seem to understand the relationship, and there's no getting around that. I'll just say that this is a place-making opportunity. Right now, the corridor is an ugly, inhospitable place suffering from disinvestment. That stands in contrast to adjacent neighborhoods and hinders their growth. Tunnel or expanded viaducts will, based on everything we know, fail to improve this situation or even worsen it. Reliance on the existing grid comes with none of those problems. The one externality associated with a grid is increased driving times for some motorists in some areas. An micro-level inconvenience in many ways? Sure. The basis for ignoring decades of good policy outcomes elsewhere, eh, I'm not convinced.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Although I love the thought of a tunnel, the other problem (besides significant costs, demolition, and time of construction) is that a tunnel prevents the city of Syracuse from showcasing itself to motorists just passing through

Have you seen the area through which they will be passing. Many passers through complain about the visual of Syracuse

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Exactly. The tunnel only needs a connection with 690. Everything else would be supported by the street grid. I wish they too a closer look at using West St as the new 81. They wouldn't be knocking down any historic structures on the west side that's for sure. It would be a community favor.

I want the eventual Syracuse Grand Prix to use West Street.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Quick question. Does anyone have any links to any studies for cities similar to Syracuse that went to the grid and how it turned out? That would be interesting to see.

 

[Marty McFly]

I think a tunnel could improve things a whole lot, just looking at the options. The money is obviously the sticking point (and I am not wanting a political pissing match). But at face value, with a tunnel, you can put a park or green space with shops above it (something downtown really lacks). Think of it as a blank canvas with so much potential. To think a grid would dramatically improve blighted and neglected areas, is a bit pie-in-the-sky, and I don't really buy it (unless part of the plan is to gentrify those areas.) Quick question for those in the know: is the city grid supposed to be like the main line in the Philly suburbs, or route 206 near Princeton? I've taken both those and lemme tell you, it's a major pain in the ass, especially during high traffic times. Do the tunnel, get a nice greenway above it, add in some shops, and call it a day. It connects the city, adds a usable park that is lacking in downtown, doesn't effect commutes and to me seems logical just from an option stand point. Once we come to agreement on which option is the best, then we can worry about the funding...

 

[shandeezy7]

Quick question. Does anyone have any links to any studies for cities similar to Syracuse that went to the grid and how it turned out? That would be interesting to see.

Do you have any examples of a metro area with stagnant population growth and more than adequate highway infrastructure already in place investing billions of dollars in a tunnel?

 

[KellySyracuse]

since there will be 36K+ people heading to the dome on Saturday, how many of you will be taking 81 to get up to the hill to park? And if so what time are you planning to leave to avoid traffic because of the limited amount of exits leading directly to the university?

 

[shandeezy7]

I think a tunnel could improve things a whole lot, just looking at the options. The money is obviously the sticking point (and I am not wanting a political pissing match). But at face value, with a tunnel, you can put a park or green space with shops above it (something downtown really lacks). Think of it as a blank canvas with so much potential. To think a grid would dramatically improve blighted and neglected areas, is a bit pie-in-the-sky, and I don't really buy it (unless part of the plan is to gentrify those areas.) Quick question for those in the know: is the city grid supposed to be like the main line in the Philly suburbs, or route 206 near Princeton? I've taken both those and lemme tell you, it's a major pain in the ass, especially during high traffic times. Do the tunnel, get a nice greenway above it, add in some shops, and call it a day. It connects the city, adds a usable park that is lacking in downtown, doesn't effect commutes and to me seems logical just from an option stand point. Once we come to agreement on which option is the best, then we can worry about the funding...

I don't know anything about either of those roads that you mentioned, but the community grid is not meant to be used by traffic passing through Syracuse. That traffic would use what is currently 481 around the city. If you are traveling through the city and decide to take the grid to get through it, then you wouldn't be making a very smart decision, as that is not it's purpose.

 

[KellySyracuse]

there was a letter to the editor on syracuse.com that suggested adding free lanes to the thruway with exits limited between 481 and 81. At one of the town halls at Henninger way back when DeFrancisco was doing them, the one that Kerry Mannion cried like a little baby at, I suggested making the thruway free between 481 and 81. I can't believe this hasn't been discussed more as a viable solution

 

[OttoMets]

Quick question. Does anyone have any links to any studies for cities similar to Syracuse that went to the grid and how it turned out? That would be interesting to see.

Route 34-Downtown Crossing Project Underway in New Haven (Route 34 New Haven: Downtown Crossing)

An ode to the Embarcadero Freeway, the blight by the bay

Park East History

Here are a couple more: https://gizmodo.com/6-freeway-removals-that-changed-their-cities-forever-1548314937

I also think South Capitol Street in D.C. is a good example. Not an interstate, but a redundant high-speed viaduct with higher average daily traffic counts than 81. DDOT brought it to ground level with wide sidewalks and narrower lanes the year before the baseball stadium opened and the change in neighborhoods on both sides is like night and day.

 

[shandeezy7]

there was a letter to the editor on syracuse.com that suggested adding free lanes to the thruway with exits limited between 481 and 81. At one of the town halls at Henninger way back when DeFrancisco was doing them, the one that Kerry Mannion cried like a little baby at, I suggested making the thruway free between 481 and 81. I can't believe this hasn't been discussed more as a viable solution

They did it in Buffalo, so I'm not sure why it can't be done here, although I do know that the stretch in Buffalo runs through a far more densely-populated area than the Thruway in Syracuse. It's about a 17 mile stretch (Buffalo is around a 10 mile stretch).

 

[OttoMets]

there was a letter to the editor on syracuse.com that suggested adding free lanes to the thruway with exits limited between 481 and 81. At one of the town halls at Henninger way back when DeFrancisco was doing them, the one that Kerry Mannion cried like a little baby at, I suggested making the thruway free between 481 and 81. I can't believe this hasn't been discussed more as a viable solution

This would be a boon for the village of Liverpool, too.

DeFrancisco sponsored a bill to that effect. Cuomo vetoed it. In conjunction with some other improvements, I could see this being a net positive for the region.

 

[sutomcat]

This would be a boon for the village of Liverpool, too.

DeFrancisco sponsored a bill to that effect. Cuomo vetoed it. In conjunction with some other improvements, I could see this being a net positive for the region.

As someone who commutes on I-90 every day, I would love to see this. Whatever solution is selected for I-81 is going to require years of construction to complete. Making this happen would provide another way to easily move east or west through the county.

Even if they don't add lanes but just make that section of I-90 free, it would help the region a lot.

 

[OttoMets]

I think a tunnel could improve things a whole lot, just looking at the options. The money is obviously the sticking point (and I am not wanting a political pissing match). But at face value, with a tunnel, you can put a park or green space with shops above it (something downtown really lacks). Think of it as a blank canvas with so much potential. To think a grid would dramatically improve blighted and neglected areas, is a bit pie-in-the-sky, and I don't really buy it (unless part of the plan is to gentrify those areas.) Quick question for those in the know: is the city grid supposed to be like the main line in the Philly suburbs, or route 206 near Princeton? I've taken both those and lemme tell you, it's a major pain in the ass, especially during high traffic times. Do the tunnel, get a nice greenway above it, add in some shops, and call it a day. It connects the city, adds a usable park that is lacking in downtown, doesn't effect commutes and to me seems logical just from an option stand point. Once we come to agreement on which option is the best, then we can worry about the funding...

If we're talking about the public good -- rather than the very narrow interest of Pyramid and a couple Salina landholders who want a high-speed freeway connection to run uninterrupted past their properties -- I can't think of any problems that a tunnel would solve. Onondaga County has a parallel, higher-speed freeway to the east, and it doesn't have any traffic to speak of.

And downtown Syracuse and adjacent neighborhoods aren't lacking for green space - far from it, they're only suffering from a lack of density. The real estate values along the corridor are depressed because of the traffic volume and the built environment. While I'm sure some projections for community improvement are pie-in-the-sky, the idea that the grid solution is singularly able to improve the corridor is perfectly reasonable. This chart can better illustrate what I mean.

The highest-value real estate in the county flanks the Almond Street corridor on both sides. It plummets in the area where the character of the neighborhood suffers because of the viaduct.

A tunnel could theoretically solve this: a deep bore tunnel could enter the ground around East Colvin Street and emerge near the mall. The Almond Street corridor could support hundreds of millions of dollars of new development. But we wouldn't be getting much utility from that tunnel, because it wouldn't offer direct access to downtown or the hill, and it wouldn't connect to 690. Further, because it would certain be tolled, a lot of traffic would shift to the existing grid anyhow.

To answer your Princeton question, I always take 206 through town and don't know of any parallel through streets. It's slow sometimes. In Syracuse, 88% of the traffic on the viaduct has a destination or origin between the two 481 termini. A big percentage of this is bound for downtown or the hill. That is, they're all using the grid already! Congestion results from the chokepoints on and approaching the interstates. The essence of the grid is that there are dozens of redundant streets - motorists would leave the freeway and disperse onto city streets that provide more direct access to destinations (and are running over 90% below capacity at all times).

Hope that answers a couple questions.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

The entire Thruway is scheduled to convert to "cashless tolling" by the end of 2020.

If you have an EZPass, it'll get scanned, otherwise they'll take a picture of your license plate and send you a bill.

Not charging people between I-81 and I-481 would be a piece of cake.

 

[OttoMets]

As someone who commutes on I-90 every day, I would love to see this. Whatever solution is selected for I-81 is going to require years of construction to complete. Making this happen would provide another way to easily move east or west through the county.

Even if they don't add lanes but just make that section of I-90 free, it would help the region a lot.

In a perfect world, I'd love to see millions spent on a high-speed interchange at Oswego Road, combined with removal of lanes in the village of Liverpool and some merciless traffic enforcement.

Liverpool could be one of CNY's gems, but NYSDOT destroyed it by inviting commuters from up north to rip through the village at speed. This could be undone in conjunction with some 90 improvements, and if toll elimination is part of that, I'll pay a little more in taxes to make it happen.

How's that for a regional approach?

 

[KellySyracuse]

In a perfect world, I'd love to see millions spent on a high-speed interchange at Oswego Road, combined with removal of lanes in the village of Liverpool and some merciless traffic enforcement.

Liverpool could be one of CNY's gems, but NYSDOT destroyed it by inviting commuters from up north to rip through the village at speed. This could be undone in conjunction with some 90 improvements, and if toll elimination is part of that, I'll pay a little more in taxes to make it happen.

How's that for a regional approach?

I've always thought they should reduce the lanes and speed on the parkway and add bike lanes on either side. Force people to use Old Liverpool Rd to get to 81. But I'm really pie in the sky for optimism.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I'm amazed it's not public yet. No clue what the delay is.

The political contributions from the Congel crowd keep coming in. Otherwise we would have approved the Grid a year or two ago.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Can you please share pictures of these historic monuments so we can all appreciate their architectural and cultural contribution to the city? Something tells me it's just easier to pretend that we're trying to tear down St Patrick's Cathedral. Oh the humanity.


Nothing lazy about it. It's more expensive and potentially more costly to maintain but that by itself shouldn't rule it out - it's just a convenient lightning rod. Most of the maintenance costs would be state responsibility not local. And guess what? $3B goes a long way to supporting the local economy during the years of tunnel construction. Construction workers have to live someplace. Hotels will be near capacity. That's not a bowling congress 6-month shot-in-the-arm, this is a 5+ year enema. Cuomo will spend billions in Buffalo or NYC if he doesn't spend it here. It's ok to have a nice things.

For the record, I'd prefer they re-route 81 through the West St bypass and reconnect with the current viaduct somewhere near the Inner Harbor.

He meant lazy thinking, not lazy in that it would be hard to do.

It would be expensive, very difficult to engineer, and would cost a ridiculous amount of money to maintain.

 

[FrancoPizza]

Do you have any examples of a metro area with stagnant population growth and more than adequate highway infrastructure already in place investing billions of dollars in a tunnel?

If they had built the western bypass this would be a complete non-issue. 81 was the closest thing commuters in the western and southwest burbs had to a bypass. Telling us to go take 481 is a big slap in the face. Onondaga Hill, OCC, Community General get no respect.

Maybe we should knock down 481 and tell Dewitt residents to take the West Seneca Turnpike or Erie Blvd instead. Let's see how they would like it.

 

[IthacaMatt]

If we're talking about the public good -- rather than the very narrow interest of Pyramid and a couple Salina landholders who want a high-speed freeway connection to run uninterrupted past their properties -- I can't think of any problems that a tunnel would solve. Onondaga County has a parallel, higher-speed freeway to the east, and it doesn't have any traffic to speak of.

And downtown Syracuse and adjacent neighborhoods aren't lacking for green space - far from it, they're only suffering from a lack of density. The real estate values along the corridor are depressed because of the traffic volume and the built environment. While I'm sure some projections for community improvement are pie-in-the-sky, the idea that the grid solution is singularly able to improve the corridor is perfectly reasonable. This chart can better illustrate what I mean.

View attachment 153976
The highest-value real estate in the county flanks the Almond Street corridor on both sides. It plummets in the area where the character of the neighborhood suffers because of the viaduct.

A tunnel could theoretically solve this: a deep bore tunnel could enter the ground around East Colvin Street and emerge near the mall. The Almond Street corridor could support hundreds of millions of dollars of new development. But we wouldn't be getting much utility from that tunnel, because it wouldn't offer direct access to downtown or the hill, and it wouldn't connect to 690. Further, because it would certain be tolled, a lot of traffic would shift to the existing grid anyhow.

To answer your Princeton question, I always take 206 through town and don't know of any parallel through streets. It's slow sometimes. In Syracuse, 88% of the traffic on the viaduct has a destination or origin between the two 481 termini. A big percentage of this is bound for downtown or the hill. That is, they're all using the grid already! Congestion results from the chokepoints on and approaching the interstates. The essence of the grid is that there are dozens of redundant streets - motorists would leave the freeway and disperse onto city streets that provide more direct access to destinations (and are running over 90% below capacity at all times).

Hope that answers a couple questions.

That chart is genius!
There's your answer for what ought to be done, in case anyone still has any questions.