Development in and Around Syracuse Discussion

[shandeezy7]

Yeah, business loop. Which comes with some serious federal design standards (12-foot lanes, wide turning radii) that aren't compatible with cities.

There's a lot of work left to do.

Interesting. I'm not sure I quite understand what the purpose of that designation is instead of just relabeling it a different interstate highway number.

 

[OttoMets]

Interesting. I'm not sure I quite understand what the purpose of that designation is instead of just relabeling it a different interstate highway number.

It's a way to placate Pyramid et al.; they're still kinda sorta on an interstate highway.

So basically it's your classic awful compromise in which nobody's happy. The Save 81 putzes don't get their through-highway retained, but the city's going to suffer from a highway-in-everything-but-name jammed through the middle of it.

 

[shandeezy7]

It's a way to placate Pyramid et al.; they're still kinda sorta on an interstate highway.

So basically it's your classic awful compromise in which nobody's happy. The Save 81 putzes don't get their through-highway retained, but the city's going to suffer from a highway-in-everything-but-name jammed through the middle of it.

But wouldn't it continue to be an interstate highway regardless? It would connect two interstate highways (690 to 81), which I thought means it is still considered an interstate.

 

[OttoMets]

But wouldn't it continue to be an interstate highway regardless? It would connect two interstate highways (690 to 81), which I thought means it is still considered an interstate.

If they de-designated it (which they will, only to designate as a BL), it could've become a state or even county highway with more appropriate design standards.

EDIT: or no highway at all, at least along Almond Street.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[Cheriehoop]

Uggh from 3 lanes in each direction to 2 in the heart of the city with a roundabout?

 

[two3zone]

Uggh from 3 lanes in each direction to 2 in the heart of the city with a roundabout?

The two lanes are dumb, but roundabouts are awesome.

 

[shandeezy7]

Uggh from 3 lanes in each direction to 2 in the heart of the city with a roundabout?

The viaduct currently only has two lanes, so why should the boulevard have more? People flipped out that the Erie Blvd redesign took it down from 3 lanes to 2 in the city and yet I haven’t seen any noticeable difference in traffic/congestion there.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

I'll be the round about
The words will make you out 'n' out
I spend the day your way
Call it morning driving thru the sound and in and out the valley

 

[OrangeXtreme]

The viaduct currently only has two lanes, so why should the boulevard have more? People flipped out that the Erie Blvd redesign took it down from 3 lanes to 2 in the city and yet I haven’t seen any noticeable difference in traffic/congestion there.

Except at lunch time.

Takes forever to get to Arby's.

 

[Cheriehoop]

The viaduct currently only has two lanes, so why should the boulevard have more? People flipped out that the Erie Blvd redesign took it down from 3 lanes to 2 in the city and yet I haven’t seen any noticeable difference in traffic/congestion there.

Isn’t that one of the big problems currently with Rte 81 and Rte 690 coming into the city - that 3 lanes of traffic from both routes in each direction entering the city get squished down to 2 lanes on 81 with exits and entrances off one side of them through the heart of the city backing up traffic and creating traffic hazards especially with breakdowns and car accidents? We currently encourage traffic entering the city viaduct with 3 or more lanes and then suddenly reduce it to 2 lanes inside the city, the target destination.

Not many use Erie Blvd other than local traffic because it has so many stop signs, traffic lights - it’s not currently a highway to really move traffic, but more like a city street like West Genesee or James but with a nicer looking median for local travel. Most everyone heading East- west takes 690 and gets off an exit on one of the numerous cross streets like Teall, Thompson, Midler, Bridge St to drive the block or 2 on Erie Blvd if they need to get to a specific Blvd or off Blvd location.

 

[shandeezy7]

Isn’t that one of the big problems currently with Rte 81 and Rte 690 coming into the city - that 3 lanes of traffic from both routes in each direction entering the city get squished down to 2 lanes on 81 with exits and entrances off one side of them through the heart of the city backing up traffic and creating traffic hazards especially with breakdowns and car accidents? We currently encourage traffic entering the city viaduct with 3 or more lanes and then suddenly reduce it to 2 lanes inside the city, the target destination.

Not many use Erie Blvd other than local traffic because it has so many stop signs, traffic lights - it’s not currently a highway to really move traffic, but more like a city street like West Genesee or James but with a nicer looking median for local travel. Most everyone heading East- west takes 690 and gets off an exit on one of the numerous cross streets like Teall, Thompson, Midler, Bridge St to drive the block or 2 on Erie Blvd if they need to get to a specific Blvd or off Blvd location.

The community grid won’t be a highway meant to move traffic either. Replacing 81 with a 6 lane boulevard would do nothing to encourage more pedestrian-friendly traffic patterns downtown.

 

[Cheriehoop]

The community grid won’t be a highway meant to move traffic either. Replacing 81 with a 6 lane boulevard would do nothing to encourage more pedestrian-friendly traffic patterns downtown.

I’m confused looking at that video of the community grid, how is that pedestrian friendly? The grid appears to have what I imagine are sound and visual barriers isolating it from much of the surrounding downtown area whose goal seems to be exactly the purpose of a limited access highway - to move traffic. Not trying to be argumentative but it’s what I see. From that video, with just 2 lanes, what happens when a car is disabled or there’s an accident especially with entrances Into that 2 lane thoroughfare? I was looking for an innovative improvement dealing with the issues we have had for decades with the old rte 81 not the same old same old. Just my opinion.

 

[Arangeman]

Downstaters are taught to merge like a zipper. Upstaters inexplicably think merging is a battle of egos.

Looking forward to the morons navigating a high congestion roundabout in the middle of the city.

 

[EnviroSciGuy]

Downstaters are taught to merge like a zipper. Upstaters inexplicably think merging is a battle of egos.

Looking forward to the morons navigating a high congestion roundabout in the middle of the city.

Insurrection?! You see the real beast within emerge during the daily commute.

 

[HOFCeluck]

”@& yeah #teamroundabout mount uppppp

 

[shandeezy7]

I’m confused looking at that video of the community grid, how is that pedestrian friendly? The grid appears to have what I imagine are sound and visual barriers isolating it from much of the surrounding downtown area whose goal seems to be exactly the purpose of a limited access highway - to move traffic. Not trying to be argumentative but it’s what I see. From that video, with just 2 lanes, what happens when a car is disabled or there’s an accident especially with entrances Into that 2 lane thoroughfare? I was looking for an innovative improvement dealing with the issues we have had for decades with the old rte 81 not the same old same old. Just my opinion.

Those barriers are not downtown, they are south of downtown, where it will remain a limited access highway. Once you reach the roundabout is when you are approaching downtown and that will very much be designed in a more pedestrian-friendly way, with traffic lights, crosswalks and other traffic calming measures.

 

[shandeezy7]

No sound barriers. Crosswalks. Protected bike lanes. Tree lined median. I don’t see the issue with this, other than for people who want to drive through the center of downtown at 65 MPH so they can get to the mall or the truck stop.

 

[Fly Rodder]

View attachment 203572

No sound barriers. Crosswalks. Protected bike lanes. Tree lined median. I don’t see the issue with this, other than for people who want to drive through the center of downtown at 65 MPH so they can get to the mall or the truck stop.

The only issue I see is that there is soooooo much empty space. It's still car-centric.

 

[EnviroSciGuy]

The only issue I see is that there is soooooo much empty space. It's still car-centric.

Agree, but at least it's progress. If I see a new floating roadway idea from Salina dude, I'm going to just start drinking.

 

[OttoMets]

The viaduct currently only has two lanes, so why should the boulevard have more? People flipped out that the Erie Blvd redesign took it down from 3 lanes to 2 in the city and yet I haven’t seen any noticeable difference in traffic/congestion there.

Though they should have dropped the speed limit and narrowed the lanes. People flying at 40+ only to come up on turning traffic is going to cause more crashes.

But yeah, your point is well taken. If anything there's too many lanes on the 81 proposals. Traffic always finds its own level.

 

[OttoMets]

I’m confused looking at that video of the community grid, how is that pedestrian friendly? The grid appears to have what I imagine are sound and visual barriers isolating it from much of the surrounding downtown area whose goal seems to be exactly the purpose of a limited access highway - to move traffic. Not trying to be argumentative but it’s what I see. From that video, with just 2 lanes, what happens when a car is disabled or there’s an accident especially with entrances Into that 2 lane thoroughfare? I was looking for an innovative improvement dealing with the issues we have had for decades with the old rte 81 not the same old same old. Just my opinion.

You're right. NYSDOT's traffic engineers came up with a traffic engineer solution. There's time to refine it, but I agree: if they build what's in those plans, it won't improve the ped experience and the promised development won't happen.

 

[xc84]

You're right. NYSDOT's traffic engineers came up with a traffic engineer solution. There's time to refine it, but I agree: if they build what's in those plans, it won't improve the ped experience and the promised development won't happen.

I agree its main goal is traffic but it is still a huge improvement aesthetically over the current solution. That and nicer walks/bike paths along with plantings will certainly improve things for pedestrians too. It won't be perfect but I think it will be very nice and improve downtown.

I hope the conversation about it it is not like the dome roof one. There, we had many chicken littles who though they knew enough to say it was a poor design and would never be build on time, etc.. Turned out great and on time/budget.

 

[OttoMets]

I agree its main goal is traffic but it is still a huge improvement aesthetically over the current solution. That and nicer walks/bike paths along with plantings will certainly improve things for pedestrians too. It won't be perfect but I think it will be very nice and improve downtown.

I hope the conversation about it it is not like the dome roof one. There, we had many chicken littles who though they knew enough to say it was a poor design and would never be build on time, etc.. Turned out great and on time/budget.

I mean, right now as a near-daily pedestrian I'm looking at a ~45-foot crossing distance on Almond Street. Turning radii are fairly tight for a street designed in the '60s. The Parsons plans from last week show crossing distances of over 100 feet and huge turning radii. None of their designs conforms to NACTO's recommended design standards for urban streets. If it's built like this, and I hope it isn't, it's going to be a much worse pedestrian experience.

It's the 1990s lipstick on a pig approach to transportation design: built it for cars to move as fast as possible, then drop down some out-of-context plantings and pavers in order to say alternate uses have been taken into account. Then everyone will act shocked when it's still a dead zone. For these projects to be successful, attention to detail (and best practices), is important. The design's got to encourage development that will activate life on whatever sidewalks are built.

 

[shandeezy7]

I mean, right now as a near-daily pedestrian I'm looking at a ~45-foot crossing distance on Almond Street. Turning radii are fairly tight for a street designed in the '60s. The Parsons plans from last week show crossing distances of over 100 feet and huge turning radii. None of their designs conforms to NACTO's recommended design standards for urban streets. If it's built like this, and I hope it isn't, it's going to be a much worse pedestrian experience.

It's the 1990s lipstick on a pig approach to transportation design: built it for cars to move as fast as possible, then drop down some out-of-context plantings and pavers in order to say alternate uses have been taken into account. Then everyone will act shocked when it's still a dead zone. For these projects to be successful, attention to detail (and best practices), is important. The design's got to encourage development that will activate life on whatever sidewalks are built.

What's the solution? Single lanes aren't going to cut it there. Remove the median?