Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The OCL recommends re-route I-81 with a boulevard along Almond Street, which I agree. I do like the concept of a boulevard along Almond Street for many of the reasons given by Doug Sutherland.
Removing I-81 will create an opportunity to convert Almond Street into a mixed-use corridor and finally tie the university hill area with downtown.
However, I think a tunnel (like in Boston) should not be ruled out, though it would be costly. As cited in the report, studies would be required to determine the feasibility of each alternative by NYDOT.
Sorry ckhthankgod, I just realized you had posted a thread earlier regarding I-81 and I should have posted there. There was a report on WSYR 9 and in my haste I created a new thread without scrolling down. Anyway, I posted a link to the report above.
Sorry ckhthankgod, I just realized you had posted a thread earlier regarding I-81 and I should have posted there. There was a report on WSYR 9 and in my haste I created a new thread without scrolling down. Anyway, I posted a link to the report above.
I'm curious why WSYR 9's running this again. Even per the link, this was last updated in June, and the last comment on the WSYR post was in August... the Citizen's League is already well into their next study.
Just curious...who's going to PAY for all this rerouting?? And a tunnel?? That wouldn't be cheap.
The short answer is that there is no zero-cost solution. The elevated ~0.8 mile spans of 81 through downtown are at the end of their design life and at minimum have to be removed and replaced. In order to take the in-place route, some changes have to occur in order to bring it to modern interstate specifications.
For some background information (though probably lots more than you want to know), I wrote my honors capstone thesis in history on it: http://www.acknight.com/15thWardThesis.pdf
And so the federal Department of Transportation will pay 90%. The city and state will cover the rest.
While I very firmly believe that an interstate highway should not run through an urban neighborhood, I don't like the "Almond Boulevard" concept one bit. Replacing a wide stretch of heavily-trafficked asphalt with, essentially, another? I can't imagine why the OCL would recommend this and expect a different result. A 150-foot-wide expanse is still going to be unattractive to pedestrians. I-81 should be rerouted, Almond Street should be constructed as a regular city street -- two lanes in each direction (the outermost lane used as a sharrow with bicycles) with parallel parking, treeboxes, and wide sidewalks. No median, no service roads. These things will just serve to suburbanize the area and speed up automobile traffic at the expense of the pedestrian experience (not to mention eat up potentially taxable real estate).
I'm afraid the "tear it down" crowd is pretty wedded to the wide boulevard idea, though, so perhaps I'd better don my compromise hat.
And so the federal Department of Transportation will pay 90%. The city and state will cover the rest.
While I very firmly believe that an interstate highway should not run through an urban neighborhood, I don't like the "Almond Boulevard" concept one bit. Replacing a wide stretch of heavily-trafficked asphalt with, essentially, another? I can't imagine why the OCL would recommend this and expect a different result. A 150-foot-wide expanse is still going to be unattractive to pedestrians. I-81 should be rerouted, Almond Street should be constructed as a regular city street -- two lanes in each direction (the outermost lane used as a sharrow with bicycles) with parallel parking, treeboxes, and wide sidewalks. No median, no service roads. These things will just serve to suburbanize the area and speed up automobile traffic at the expense of the pedestrian experience (not to mention eat up potentially taxable real estate).
I'm afraid the "tear it down" crowd is pretty wedded to the wide boulevard idea, though, so perhaps I'd better don my compromise hat.
I guess I'm just having a hard time picturing this - EVERY major city has an interstate running thru it - how in the heck is a boulevard going to suffice and take the place of an interstate with all the traffic they carry and at such higher speeds??
The short answer is that there is no zero-cost solution. The elevated ~0.8 mile spans of 81 through downtown are at the end of their design life and at minimum have to be removed and replaced. In order to take the in-place route, some changes have to occur in order to bring it to modern interstate specifications.
For some background information (though probably lots more than you want to know), I wrote my honors capstone thesis in history on it: http://www.acknight.com/15thWardThesis.pdf
There may be no "zero cost" solution, but the solution of dismantling the interstate completely in favor of a boulevard, and my gosh, a TUNNEL, would sure be a lot more expensive than just repairing or replacing the parts who have come to the end of their life
I read your entire thesis, thanks for the link. I found the history it contained very interesting!
There may be no "zero cost" solution, but the solution of dismantling the interstate completely in favor of a boulevard, and my gosh, a TUNNEL, would sure be a lot more expensive than just repairing or replacing the parts who have come to the end of their life
I read your entire thesis, thanks for the link. I found the history it contained very interesting!
A complete reconstruction requires dismantling it anyways, so a boulevard would actually be the least expensive solution (vs. rebuilding the bridges once dismantled).
While most cities have interstates within their boundaries, they don't typically have them running through their cores.
I guess I'm just having a hard time picturing this - EVERY major city has an interstate running thru it - how in the heck is a boulevard going to suffice and take the place of an interstate with all the traffic they carry and at such higher speeds??
The section of 81 in question has a 45 mph speed limit, and for most of the elevated section, it's only two lanes in each direction.
A traffic study was done in conjunction with the OCL study, and found that the only choke points in the surrounding traffic flow were at on and off ramps - the rest of the roads in the immediate vicinity are at or below half of their designed capacity. The study only suggests the removal of the elevated portions (basically, south of 690) as that was the study area. The elevated section's just shy of a mile long, and the span from 481 north to 690 is only about 4 miles long.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
