Future Campus Framework Presentation...

[Cusefan0307]

That seems to have come out of nowhere, no?

No, it's part of the 81 rebuild. They are starting this part first, to minimize impact later.

 

[xc84]

The biggest issues with route 81 is the crazy downtown junctures with 690. The bottleneck is at the Adams St exit which is exacerbated by the route 690 entrance right before that Adams St southbound exit. Northbound again the worst problem is the juncture with 690 shortly after the Harrison St entrance. Otherwise 81 has really never been an issue. If the 690 junctures with 81 were moved from the busiest downtown areas, I think 95% of what Syracuse considers traffic jams would go away. 690 is as much a problem as 81 and divides the city just as much dividing the city into quadrants.

They will re-work the entrances/exits to/from 690 for all options including the state highway /boulevard option. 690 is on the the northern side of downtown and I don't think it divides it as much as 81 does. Without 81 overpass, I think it will be better.

 

[FrancoPizza]

690 is on the the northern side of downtown and I don't think it divides it as much as 81 does.

690 is an elevated highway for large stretches. There are city streets that we use to travel under it. Please explain how this is different than 81. For the record if the boulevard is selected I am hopeful that it can improve access for most stakeholders, but what irks me is the persistent rhetoric that the interstate "divides communities". That is classical liberal hogwash. I can see it now: a 6-lane boulevard will have "safe zones" where Pioneer Homes residents can hold hands with the Upstate surgeons and RNs singing kumbaya on their lunch breaks.

The boulevard may ultimately be the better choice, but let's keep the focus on transportation safety, access to downtown employers, and real estate opportunities as the main drivers. And let's not dismiss a tunnel simply because it seems too ambitious. Leaders find ways to make things happen. Losers look for reasons not to do something. Many thought the Erie Canal was crazy.

 

[xc84]

690 is an elevated highway for large stretches. There are city streets that we use to travel under it. Please explain how this is different than 81.

Look at a map. I didn't say 690 does not divide...I said 81 divides it more. 690 divides downtown at about the 80% mark and was built over the train route. 81 divides downtown the entire length. Let's face it, imagine if there was no highway cutting through downtown where 81 is. Would anyone really propose a highway that would cut through its middle? I don't think so.

In addition, I think the boulevard option and re-route of 81 is the best idea overall when considering all factors. It moves 81 from downtown and improves access to and around downtown. I am not dismissing a tunnel because it is "too ambitious". It is simply a bad idea all things considered.

 

[OttoMets]

Look at a map. I didn't say 690 does not divide...I said 81 divides it more. 690 divides downtown at about the 80% mark and was built over the train route. 81 divides downtown the entire length. Let's face it, imagine if there was no highway cutting through downtown where 81 is. Would anyone really propose a highway that would cut through its middle? I don't think so.

In addition, I think the boulevard option and re-route of 81 is the best idea overall when considering all factors. It moves 81 from downtown and improves access to and around downtown. I am not dismissing a tunnel because it is "too ambitious". It is simply a bad idea all things considered.

Right, ambitious isn't the word. Tunneling under the Almond Street corridor while maintaining an interchange with 690 and providing an exit to and entrance from downtown and the Hill isn't ambitious, it's impossible. It's also a ridiculous idea for a highway with relatively few vehicles in small city; that it was proposed and even entertained in a cursory way only speaks to the big money behind a powerful local legislator. Construction of something like this would never happen.

Of course 81 divides the city, and it does so much more sharply than 690, which runs through an industrial canal/rail corridor that the city was built around. The differences in mobility options, quality of space, and development potential adjacent these two freeways should be clear to everyone:

 

[FrancoPizza]

I am not dismissing a tunnel because it is "too ambitious". It is simply a bad idea all things considered.

Bad idea because of cost? Millions of our tax dollars go to support other expensive projects all over the state - and especially downstate - every year. It's time the rest of the state chipped in for something that benefits CNY. The difference between a $1B and $3B project might be $50 for every taxpayer for all we know. People hear the word "taxes" and just love to complain in a vacuum. All those rotting water pipes beneath the city? The DOT would be forced to replace and modernize that section of the grid. It's an overlooked upside that at least one senator has pointed out. The water table? Let engineers investigate the latest methods and determine how difficult it might be before dismissing the idea as "impossible". Level of difficulty needs to be measured in terms of specific risks and impacts. Worst case, we can put the cars on floating pallets if the tunnel springs a leak.

 

[xc84]

Bad idea because of cost?

Bad idea due to many factors involved including cost. It is totally independent of replacing water pipes which would be another huge undertaking. I think that can and should be done in any case. I never said a tunnel was "impossible". I said I thought it was a bad idea.

 

[syracuse95]

A tunnel is almost always the last option for any road project. They are prohibitively expensive to build and operate. I would bet that to construct a tunnel on the I-81 alignment, the utility relocation alone would cost more than the construction of the boulevard. Every utility that falls within the footprint of the existing viaduct would need to be reconstructed and relocated…steam, fiber, copper telecom, electric, nat gas, sanitary sewer, water, storm drain. Storm drain would be particularly difficult, since the entire flow of the current system is down the hill and under I-81 toward Onandaga Creek. A tunnel would disrupt the entire storm drain system require the piping and drainage structures to be replaced not just in the area of the tunnel, but likely all the way to where they discharge almost a mile away. Constructing the boulevard would allow a lot, if not most, of the utility infrastructure to stay in place.

Constructing the tunnel itself is expensive.

Then you have the maintenance cost. Tunnels aren’t actually “maintained” as much as they are “operated”. In addition to the regular maintenance items associated with any road (pavement, structural members, etc.) you have all kinds of mechanical systems that need to be maintained…ventilation, dewatering, traffic monitoring, fire suppression. Those systems cost a lot on an ongoing basis to operate and maintain. Anytime you drive through a tunnel, take note of how many vehicles are parked at the entrance or exit. There’s a control center that is staffed by engineers and maintenance staff 24/7/365. They have to ensure that the water intrusion alarms are functional, that the dewatering pumps are working, perform continuous air monitoring, ensure that the ventilation system is working, etc. All this stuff is a significant ongoing expense.

There’s more to a tunnel than just the exorbitant upfront construction costs.

 

[OttoMets]

A tunnel is almost always the last option for any road project. They are prohibitively expensive to build and operate. I would bet that to construct a tunnel on the I-81 alignment, the utility relocation alone would cost more than the construction of the boulevard. Every utility that falls within the footprint of the existing viaduct would need to be reconstructed and relocated…steam, fiber, copper telecom, electric, nat gas, sanitary sewer, water, storm drain. Storm drain would be particularly difficult, since the entire flow of the current system is down the hill and under I-81 toward Onandaga Creek. A tunnel would disrupt the entire storm drain system require the piping and drainage structures to be replaced not just in the area of the tunnel, but likely all the way to where they discharge almost a mile away. Constructing the boulevard would allow a lot, if not most, of the utility infrastructure to stay in place.

Constructing the tunnel itself is expensive.

Then you have the maintenance cost. Tunnels aren’t actually “maintained” as much as they are “operated”. In addition to the regular maintenance items associated with any road (pavement, structural members, etc.) you have all kinds of mechanical systems that need to be maintained…ventilation, dewatering, traffic monitoring, fire suppression. Those systems cost a lot on an ongoing basis to operate and maintain. Anytime you drive through a tunnel, take note of how many vehicles are parked at the entrance or exit. There’s a control center that is staffed by engineers and maintenance staff 24/7/365. They have to ensure that the water intrusion alarms are functional, that the dewatering pumps are working, perform continuous air monitoring, ensure that the ventilation system is working, etc. All this stuff is a significant ongoing expense.

There’s more to a tunnel than just the exorbitant upfront construction costs.

Good post.

And all that for maybe 20,000 cars a day that are headed from someplace south of Colvin Street to somewhere north of downtown (but nowhere in between) and don't want to take 481 for that journey?

This was never an option; it's a silly pipe dream.

 

[dooey139]

A tunnel is almost always the last option for any road project. They are prohibitively expensive to build and operate. I would bet that to construct a tunnel on the I-81 alignment, the utility relocation alone would cost more than the construction of the boulevard. Every utility that falls within the footprint of the existing viaduct would need to be reconstructed and relocated…steam, fiber, copper telecom, electric, nat gas, sanitary sewer, water, storm drain. Storm drain would be particularly difficult, since the entire flow of the current system is down the hill and under I-81 toward Onandaga Creek. A tunnel would disrupt the entire storm drain system require the piping and drainage structures to be replaced not just in the area of the tunnel, but likely all the way to where they discharge almost a mile away. Constructing the boulevard would allow a lot, if not most, of the utility infrastructure to stay in place.

Constructing the tunnel itself is expensive.

Then you have the maintenance cost. Tunnels aren’t actually “maintained” as much as they are “operated”. In addition to the regular maintenance items associated with any road (pavement, structural members, etc.) you have all kinds of mechanical systems that need to be maintained…ventilation, dewatering, traffic monitoring, fire suppression. Those systems cost a lot on an ongoing basis to operate and maintain. Anytime you drive through a tunnel, take note of how many vehicles are parked at the entrance or exit. There’s a control center that is staffed by engineers and maintenance staff 24/7/365. They have to ensure that the water intrusion alarms are functional, that the dewatering pumps are working, perform continuous air monitoring, ensure that the ventilation system is working, etc. All this stuff is a significant ongoing expense.

There’s more to a tunnel than just the exorbitant upfront construction costs.

Great post. The main question I have is which would be better: using 481 to 690 as the new 81 or just the entire 481 as 81.

 

[ssmorol]

Great post. The main question I have is which would be better: using 481 to 690 as the new 81 or just the entire 481 as 81.

Obviously the entire 481 as 81...but with politics involved, I'm guessing it will be 481 to 690.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Great post. The main question I have is which would be better: using 481 to 690 as the new 81 or just the entire 481 as 81.

If you use all of 481 as the new 81, what do you do with the section of 81 that runs from 690 past Destiny and the Airport? That section will be unaffected by a viaduct / boulevard / tunnel.

 

[sutomcat]

Great post. The main question I have is which would be better: using 481 to 690 as the new 81 or just the entire 481 as 81.

First, I keep checking this thread hoping to read news on the Carrier Dome renovation/campus improvement project. Maybe we should break all the talk about the I81 project into a separate thread.

On the subject of I81, I hope that if the boulevard option is chosen, the boulevard only runs from the intersection with I690 south to south area south of downtown. MSK makes the most sense to me but if that is not politically possible, then Colvin.

If people can't get from I690 to I81 N and vice versa, it will impact many thousands of commuters (and fans who attend Syracuse games).

Access to the Dome would be impacted in a major way. Adding an extra 30 minutes to the drive to and from is going to impact attendance.

 

[OttoMets]

If you use all of 481 as the new 81, what do you do with the section of 81 that runs from 690 past Destiny and the Airport? That section will be unaffected by a viaduct / boulevard / tunnel.

First, I keep checking this thread hoping to read news on the Carrier Dome renovation/campus improvement project. Maybe we should break all the talk about the I81 project into a separate thread.

On the subject of I81, I hope that if the boulevard option is chosen, the boulevard only runs from the intersection with I690 south to south area south of downtown. MSK makes the most sense to me but if that is not politically possible, then Colvin.

If people can't get from I690 to I81 N and vice versa, it will impact many thousands of commuters (and fans who attend Syracuse games).

Access to the Dome would be impacted in a major way. Adding an extra 30 minutes to the drive to and from is going to impact attendance.

Don't worry, Hill access is one thing that'll be enhanced. The current 81 from 690 north will remain a limited-access expressway (possibly a wider interstate than what exists now, maybe a state-signed freeway that's pretty much the same as what exists now, both with connections to 690).

Agree that we've taken this hijack as far as it can go.

 

[syracuse95]

If you use all of 481 as the new 81, what do you do with the section of 81 that runs from 690 past Destiny and the Airport? That section will be unaffected by a viaduct / boulevard / tunnel.

Reclassify the entire current 81 corridor between the 481 interchanges as "I-81 Business". Interstate Business loops and spurs don't need to meet interstate highway specs, just US Highway System specs. Which means they can have at grade intersections and traffic signals.

Winston-Salem, NC has an almost identical situation with a city bypass classified as I-40, and the old route through the city classified as US 421/I-40 Business. There are lots of other Business Interstate loops in other cities as well.

 

[FrancoPizza]

A tunnel is almost always the last option for any road project. They are prohibitively expensive to build and operate. I would bet that to construct a tunnel on the I-81 alignment, the utility relocation alone would cost more than the construction of the boulevard. Every utility that falls within the footprint of the existing viaduct would need to be reconstructed and relocated…steam, fiber, copper telecom, electric, nat gas, sanitary sewer, water, storm drain. Storm drain would be particularly difficult, since the entire flow of the current system is down the hill and under I-81 toward Onandaga Creek. A tunnel would disrupt the entire storm drain system require the piping and drainage structures to be replaced not just in the area of the tunnel, but likely all the way to where they discharge almost a mile away. Constructing the boulevard would allow a lot, if not most, of the utility infrastructure to stay in place.

Constructing the tunnel itself is expensive.

Then you have the maintenance cost. Tunnels aren’t actually “maintained” as much as they are “operated”. In addition to the regular maintenance items associated with any road (pavement, structural members, etc.) you have all kinds of mechanical systems that need to be maintained…ventilation, dewatering, traffic monitoring, fire suppression. Those systems cost a lot on an ongoing basis to operate and maintain. Anytime you drive through a tunnel, take note of how many vehicles are parked at the entrance or exit. There’s a control center that is staffed by engineers and maintenance staff 24/7/365. They have to ensure that the water intrusion alarms are functional, that the dewatering pumps are working, perform continuous air monitoring, ensure that the ventilation system is working, etc. All this stuff is a significant ongoing expense.

There’s more to a tunnel than just the exorbitant upfront construction costs.

Informative. One thing to keep in mind is that much of the utility infrastructure is crap and needs to be replaced anyway. That, to me, is one of the few redeeming aspects of the tunnel. The Mayor keeps begging for state $ to come up with a plan to deal with this, and Cuomo rebuts by saying it's not his problem.

All things considered, a boulevard can work if no corners are cut, but that's a big IF. And I still hold out hope for a viaduct because modern versions of elevated highways actually look pretty slick if designed with proper aesthetics in mind.

I, too, would like to see news about the Dome, but it sounds like the much anticipated news was actually the P-S leak a few weeks ago. Otherwise, we would have heard something new by now, right? Hopefully the only thing that was inaccurate in those renderings was the type of trees they plan to install.

 

[jr4750]

Informative. One thing to keep in mind is that much of the utility infrastructure is crap and needs to be replaced anyway. That, to me, is one of the few redeeming aspects of the tunnel. The Mayor keeps begging for state $ to come up with a plan to deal with this, and Cuomo rebuts by saying it's not his problem.

All things considered, a boulevard can work if no corners are cut, but that's a big IF. And I still hold out hope for a viaduct because modern versions of elevated highways actually look pretty slick if designed with proper aesthetics in mind.

I, too, would like to see news about the Dome, but it sounds like the much anticipated news was actually the P-S leak a few weeks ago. Otherwise, we would have heard something new by now, right? Hopefully the only thing that was inaccurate in those renderings was the type of trees they plan to install.

The plan was for the entire framework to be released in June, so it could theoretically come at anytime. That said, the IVMF plans were supposed to be finalized and released in May, and thus far, not a word. Quite frustrating.

 

[KellySyracuse]

If you use all of 481 as the new 81, what do you do with the section of 81 that runs from 690 past Destiny and the Airport? That section will be unaffected by a viaduct / boulevard / tunnel.

couldn't that remain 81 but labeled business or downtown spur?

Edit: syracuse95 beat me to it

 

[Toga]

Could a tunnel have cool LED light displays?

 

[FrancoPizza]

Could a tunnel have cool LED light displays?

Modern elevated expressways use them.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Could a tunnel have cool LED light displays?

 

[brandokc]

 

[MaxwellCuse]

Wish we could see more on the Irving Ave side...looks like the street will be gone and the hotel will be between the parking garage and the dome. Wonder when SU will release all the info? Someone on here said next Monday was supposed to be the planned announcement?

Apparently not.

 

[OrangePA]

Informative. One thing to keep in mind is that much of the utility infrastructure is crap and needs to be replaced anyway. That, to me, is one of the few redeeming aspects of the tunnel. The Mayor keeps begging for state $ to come up with a plan to deal with this, and Cuomo rebuts by saying it's not his problem.

All things considered, a boulevard can work if no corners are cut, but that's a big IF. And I still hold out hope for a viaduct because modern versions of elevated highways actually look pretty slick if designed with proper aesthetics in mind.

I, too, would like to see news about the Dome, but it sounds like the much anticipated news was actually the P-S leak a few weeks ago. Otherwise, we would have heard something new by now, right? Hopefully the only thing that was inaccurate in those renderings was the type of trees they plan to install.

The viaduct ruined that portion of the city.

Get rid of it and develop the property - do something to change the trajectory of Syracuse NY!

 

[SU2NASA]