REMEMBER THE NEW STADIUM?

[SU2NASA]

Anyone here complaining about Dome traffic is out of their mind. Spend a day leaving Ann Arbor on a football Saturday and then tell me how bad the Dome traffic is.

 

[Millhouse]

They were also going to build a mass transit connection from the main campus to the South campus as part of the plan.

Besides the direct ramps to and from I-481, there are existing connections near the stadium that also could be used, including the I-481 connection at Jamesville Ave, the I-481 connection at Ainsley Drive, the I-81 connection at Brighton (entrance and exit) and the Colvin St entrance to I-81.

These are all used today by many to arrive at and return from games at the Dome; they would just become more convenient in the new location. The Harrison/Almond exit/entrance would also be helpful, though not as much as they are today with the current location of the Dome.

Getting away from the hospital complex and main campus would in and of itself by a huge improvement for people driving to the games. There is too much going on right now in that area now on game days.

The relatively small number of people who walk to the games can makea a longer walk (for most), take the mass transit options, ride a bike or get a ride/drive a car to the games. Resolving the current major problems with parking, tailgating, egress to the main medical complex in CNY...all these things make the Drumlins location a better location than the current location.

That being said, you still need money, a lot of it, to make this happen. The biggest drawback to this location is that I think it is unlikely SU is going to see much government help building a stadium on campus (even the South campus). The same applies to the Inner Harbor. Rightly or wrongly, for the government to pony up serious coin, the stadium is going to need to be located in a part of the city that needs desperately need economic development, an area no developer would touch otherwise (i.e. no Inner Harbor). This is based on recent comments from Joanie Mahoney, who should know more about this than anyone on this board.

Anyway, I think the play here is for SU to study renovation plans and go in that direction. If someone is willing to build them a new stadium, you take it gratefully. If not, you do what is needed to make the Carrier Dome work long term and save money for its replacement at some point in the long term future. Sounds to me like SU is doing the right things and is on the right path.

"If someone is willing to build them a new stadium, you take it gratefully."

not if you don't have the money to pay for all the new roads and exits

one piddly exit off 390 in rochester costs 70 million

 

[OttoMets]

They were also going to build a mass transit connection from the main campus to the South campus as part of the plan.

Besides the direct ramps to and from I-481, there are existing connections near the stadium that also could be used, including the I-481 connection at Jamesville Ave, the I-481 connection at Ainsley Drive, the I-81 connection at Brighton (entrance and exit) and the Colvin St entrance to I-81.

These are all used today by many to arrive at and return from games at the Dome; they would just become more convenient in the new location. The Harrison/Almond exit/entrance would also be helpful, though not as much as they are today with the current location of the Dome.

Getting away from the hospital complex and main campus would in and of itself by a huge improvement for people driving to the games. There is too much going on right now in that area now on game days.

The relatively small number of people who walk to the games can makea a longer walk (for most), take the mass transit options, ride a bike or get a ride/drive a car to the games. Resolving the current major problems with parking, tailgating, egress to the main medical complex in CNY...all these things make the Drumlins location a better location than the current location.

That being said, you still need money, a lot of it, to make this happen. The biggest drawback to this location is that I think it is unlikely SU is going to see much government help building a stadium on campus (even the South campus). The same applies to the Inner Harbor. Rightly or wrongly, for the government to pony up serious coin, the stadium is going to need to be located in a part of the city that needs desperately need economic development, an area no developer would touch otherwise (i.e. no Inner Harbor). This is based on recent comments from Joanie Mahoney, who should know more about this than anyone on this board.

Anyway, I think the play here is for SU to study renovation plans and go in that direction. If someone is willing to build them a new stadium, you take it gratefully. If not, you do what is needed to make the Carrier Dome work long term and save money for its replacement at some point in the long term future. Sounds to me like SU is doing the right things and is on the right path.

On the first point, Dan's got the insider knowledge about the proposal, so apologies if I'm incorrect. But based on what Dan's said to me and what he's written in this thread, I think the mass transit option (which would be neat, if kind of wasteful) was a future possibility rather than an integral part of the stadium plan. Reading between the lines, the developer would build its profit-generator and then announce that the rail line is economically infeasible and would be delayed or not built at all. We couldn't count on that to get fans to the stadium from Day One.

Regarding all the streets and exits you mentioned, they're all part of the network that gets people to games now, but they'd all feed into the same couple chokepoints in getting people and cars up to the top of Skytop - Brighton and Colvin et al. would feed into Skytop Road, Jamesville and Rock Cut and a new 481 exit would feed into the two-lane cut on the south side of Skytop. Everything works somewhat well now because there's a grid; when people are still driving in from all those directions but being funneled into one large lot with two entrances, it's going to be slow.

Same thing for the walkers. A small percentage of people walk, door-to-door, to the Dome, but almost everyone walks in some capacity (since there's almost no onsite parking). In the 360 degrees around the Dome, there are dozens of places from which people walk - parking lots or on street spots in every direction, bars, homes. For Skytop, again, everyone is going to be concentrated into one mode. Those who today might walk from cars on East Genesee, Thornden, Euclid, Martin Luther King School (never needing to drive their cars anywhere near the Dome) will lose those dispersed options for a Skytop stadium; some might take busses from satellite lots, some will invariably choose to drive up there. Again, it's an access problem more than a capacity problem - 15,000 or 20,000 parking spots will handle everyone, but getting that many cars into one finite space will take a lot of time.

It's all academic; I agree with you that SU's not getting public funds for a Skytop project and I also believe that Syverud's administration will come out in favor of a Dome renovation.

 

[Millhouse]

Anyone here complaining about Dome traffic is out of their mind. Spend a day leaving Ann Arbor on a football Saturday and then tell me how bad the Dome traffic is.

part of the reason dome traffic isn't bad is because no one likes syracuse football. but we can't say that too loud because it would raise questions about why we're spending hundreds of millions on a team no one likes

 

[SU2NASA]

part of the reason dome traffic isn't bad is because no one likes syracuse football.

Those are probably the same people that hate America.

 

[FAL]

part of the reason dome traffic isn't bad is because no one likes syracuse football. but we can't say that too loud because it would raise questions about why we're spending hundreds of millions on a team no one likes

Rational argument up until now Oh Lord

 

[dollarbill44]

To all - you have to do simple ROI math. With rates so low, here is a simple illustration:

1. $200 million state grant
2. $200 - $250 million muni bond issuance depending upon 3 below - $1 - $1.5 million in principal & interest annual carrying costs
3. Up to $100 million in private fundraising like naming rights as 1 example

Ongoing costs are covered by advertising, box, ticket & concessions - multiple event stadium produces more revenue at same time spreads fixed expenses over more events. Because of what we know about past attendance to all the groups who would use the new stadium, it's a very easy ROI calculation with limited initial risk.

Again I state the obvious - Mayor Minor was and is to this day a political minor leaguer who is in over her head. She has made strategic political mistakes with the Gov & Dem party and now has compounded those political mistakes with a major financial mistakes - that would have increased the property taxes revenue for the city. She needs to go.

I am having trouble with the $1 - $1.5MM in annual carrying costs you're citing. For simplicity's sake, amortization alone on a 20 year $200MM bond is going to be $10MM per year, then you have to add interest to that. The City of Syracuse is rated A-/A1 (S&P/Moodys). It's latest bond issuance (2014 Public Improvement bonds) carries a 5% rate and that is on a small amount of principal, so I would expect a higher rate on $200MM. Granted, this is a general obligation bond so it isn't entirely applicable. Another example is the Arizona Cardinals stadium whose muni bonds (A rated by Fitch, which falls between the split ratings of Syracuse) carry interest rates of 4% for the first 10 years and 5% for the remaining 13 years. The amortization is tailored and heavily back-ended.

A public-private partnership is probably a better way to go for several reasons, but I think you will still be looking at interest rates in the range of 4% over a 20-25 year concession period.

I'm not a muni-bond guy, so I'm sure there's something I'm missing.

 

[Jake]

(1) Actually, if they are going to revise 481, it's the perfect time to include this type of change in the overall 81 reconfiguration. (2) Exactly, that's why 481 would be even wider (or have totally independent lanes) near the new retractable roof dome on/off ramps.

1) because there is no money to do it.
2) there are no plans to widen 481 in any of the current mock ups. Only plants to bolster each interchange with route 81. Why? Because there isn't any money.

R u sensing a theme here?

 

[oldpinepoint]

1) because there is no money to do it.
2) there are no plans to widen 481 in any of the current mock ups. Only plants to bolster each interchange with route 81. Why? Because there isn't any money.

R u sensing a theme here?

Since when has that stopped our government.

 

[Millhouse]

good thing Millhouse is not in charge of change and development or we would all be living in Bedrock.

people proposing stupid changes like to say that their opponents oppose change and not stupidity

 

[chakka3421]

I am having trouble with the $1 - $1.5MM in annual carrying costs you're citing. For simplicity's sake, amortization alone on a 20 year $200MM bond is going to be $10MM per year, then you have to add interest to that. The City of Syracuse is rated A-/A1 (S&P/Moodys). It's latest bond issuance (2014 Public Improvement bonds) carries a 5% rate and that is on a small amount of principal, so I would expect a higher rate on $200MM. Granted, this is a general obligation bond so it isn't entirely applicable. Another example is the Arizona Cardinals stadium whose muni bonds (A rated by Fitch, which falls between the split ratings of Syracuse) carry interest rates of 4% for the first 10 years and 5% for the remaining 13 years. The amortization is tailored and heavily back-ended.

A public-private partnership is probably a better way to go for several reasons, but I think you will still be looking at interest rates in the range of 4% over a 20-25 year concession period.

I'm not a muni-bond guy, so I'm sure there's something I'm missing.

Great catch - Ha I'm only off a decimal point - out of office this week so couldn't run the simulation properly. Anyway munis go for 30-40 years if I'm not mistaken. If I'm off a zero, then P&I on $100 million would still be $5-$6 million. Still for a business ROI - revenue & expenses are already fairly known.

 

[anglerman]

you're not the only who thinks like this which is why NY spends all our money on turds

So you're saying you would rather have the money spent elsewhere? Wether it's right or wrong makes no difference. The money will still be spent. You being a fiscal right wing conservative isn't going stop that money from being spent.

So my question to you is do you want it spent here or elsewhere?

 

[Millhouse]

So you're saying you would rather have the money spent elsewhere? Wether it's right or wrong makes no difference. The money will still be spent. You being a fiscal right wing conservative isn't going stop that money from being spent.

So my question to you is do you want it spent here or elsewhere?

if 400 million is burning a hole in their pocket, maybe they do spend it somewhere else right now

but it doesn't stop there. presumably there is someone in albany that keeps track of who has gotten what over time and next time around maybe the state money goes to something that's actually needed and important

everyone likes to say "the money will be spent" but then they pretend like next year the money won't be spent

if the only way Syracuse can ever get money back is to do useless projects in a haphazard fashion, well shame on Albany. Cuomo won't be there forever, hopefully someone else has a brain in his head

 

[sutomcat]

"If someone is willing to build them a new stadium, you take it gratefully."

not if you don't have the money to pay for all the new roads and exits

one piddly exit off 390 in rochester costs 70 million

Looks like you are confusing reconstruction of an interstate with adding an exit and an entrance ramp.

 

[xc84]

also if it will get done just like it gets done in every other city, why is everyone so up in arms about miner wanting to know what she's on the hook for?

Because she opposed it. When you are asked to support something by a certain date and you don't, then you opposed it. If she supported it, we'd be moving toward a new stadium. She didn't do that.

 

[xc84]

part of the reason dome traffic isn't bad is because no one likes syracuse football. but we can't say that too loud because it would raise questions about why we're spending hundreds of millions on a team no one likes

This solidifies you right to the title of "Mr. Negative" on this board.

 

[sutomcat]

On the first point, Dan's got the insider knowledge about the proposal, so apologies if I'm incorrect. But based on what Dan's said to me and what he's written in this thread, I think the mass transit option (which would be neat, if kind of wasteful) was a future possibility rather than an integral part of the stadium plan. Reading between the lines, the developer would build its profit-generator and then announce that the rail line is economically infeasible and would be delayed or not built at all. We couldn't count on that to get fans to the stadium from Day One.

Regarding all the streets and exits you mentioned, they're all part of the network that gets people to games now, but they'd all feed into the same couple chokepoints in getting people and cars up to the top of Skytop - Brighton and Colvin et al. would feed into Skytop Road, Jamesville and Rock Cut and a new 481 exit would feed into the two-lane cut on the south side of Skytop. Everything works somewhat well now because there's a grid; when people are still driving in from all those directions but being funneled into one large lot with two entrances, it's going to be slow.

Same thing for the walkers. A small percentage of people walk, door-to-door, to the Dome, but almost everyone walks in some capacity (since there's almost no onsite parking). In the 360 degrees around the Dome, there are dozens of places from which people walk - parking lots or on street spots in every direction, bars, homes. For Skytop, again, everyone is going to be concentrated into one mode. Those who today might walk from cars on East Genesee, Thornden, Euclid, Martin Luther King School (never needing to drive their cars anywhere near the Dome) will lose those dispersed options for a Skytop stadium; some might take busses from satellite lots, some will invariably choose to drive up there. Again, it's an access problem more than a capacity problem - 15,000 or 20,000 parking spots will handle everyone, but getting that many cars into one finite space will take a lot of time.

It's all academic; I agree with you that SU's not getting public funds for a Skytop project and I also believe that Syverud's administration will come out in favor of a Dome renovation.

I am good with agreeing to disagree about whether a newer, more modern Dome built at Drumlins would be a better solution for the university and the fanbase. And we agree it is unlikely the Dome is getting replaced anytime soon, based on what the new chancellor is doing to date.

Though there have been at least two separate proposals by completely different parties to replace it in recent years, both of which would have involved massive help from outside parties to help pay for the project.

 

[xc84]

I'm counting:

1) Skytop Road;

2) The requested I-481 interchange connecting through Drumlins East up to the back side of Skytop. [Obviously necessary for the project, if unapproved and unfunded.]

I can't imagine where another access point would come from; SU couldn't run any new streets through the driving range end of Drumlins - the hill is too steep. There wouldn't be any connections on the west end of the site, as there's a neighborhood there. And SU's own buildings on the north side of the hill preclude any street construction to complement Skytop coming up from Colvin.

There could also be a separate access from Jameville Road. If I had another 5 minutes to think about it, I'd come up with another but I think you could too.

 

[Millhouse]

Because she opposed it. When you are asked to support something by a certain date and you don't, then you opposed it. If she supported it, we'd be moving toward a new stadium. She didn't do that.

funny, you used to distinguish between opposing something and ignoring it a few hours ago. but now the lack of support is opposition by default.

i'll spare you what i think your title could be on this board or in real life most likely

 

[Millhouse]

Looks like you are confusing reconstruction of an interstate with adding an exit and an entrance ramp.

i think my description is far more accurate than your's and the writer of that article

 

[xc84]

which was what she did. she wasn't running around yelling about it. no one has anything concrete about her obstructing this. just general complaints about insufficient support and enthusiasm

Um..she sent a note to SU among other things. She didn't just sit on it.

 

[xc84]

1) because there is no money to do it.
2) there are no plans to widen 481 in any of the current mock ups. Only plants to bolster each interchange with route 81. Why? Because there isn't any money.

R u sensing a theme here?

Nope. Each option has its own price tag. Nothing has been approved yet. This could be added to whatever plan they choose and approved for funding. By the way, you are wrong about no additional changes to 481 and it would not have to be widened in its entirety for this.

 

[Millhouse]

Um..she sent a note to SU among other things. She didn't just sit on it.

that's exactly what i'm talking about. no one has anything concrete, just general complaints

and you respond with Uh she wrote something and other things

mr [blank]

 

[Millhouse]

Nothing has been approved yet.

yes! we finally agree!

this wasn't really approved

 

[xc84]

funny, you used to distinguish between opposing something and ignoring it a few hours ago. but now the lack of support is opposition by default.

i'll spare you what i think your title could be on this board or in real life most likely

That's not funny. I was trying to avoid wasting time commenting on whether she opposed it because it had nothing to do with my response to whether or not the money was real. The money was real which is why she opposed it but even if you disagree she opposed it, she did react as if the money was real and in fact, you keep telling the world how proud you are of her for doing it.