"and require $10 million a year to operate"to be paid for by, who...
Posted on 12/11/2017 4:43:18 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
A $2 million study on replacing part of Interstate 81 in Syracuse with a tunnel supports what national transportation experts say they have known for years: Tunnels usually are a bad idea.
While an I-81 tunnel would be technically feasible, it would be difficult to justify the cost of up to $4.5 billion at a time when few publicly-financed tunnel projects are moving forward, according to four transportation policy experts interviewed by syracuse.com.
The few highway tunnel projects approved in recent years have been expensive mega projects, often plagued by delays and cost overruns that have drawn public criticism, the experts said.
New York transportation officials seemed to acknowledge those facts last year when, after four years of study, the state Department of Transportation rejected the idea of building a tunnel to replace the deteriorating 1.4-mile viaduct on I-81 in Syracuse.
The project would be too expensive, take too long to complete, displace hundreds of workers and require demolishing dozens of buildings, state officials said. Engineers also found soil problems that could weaken bridges above the tunnel route.
But now the tunnel option is back on the table, following the public release Monday of the study ordered by Gov. Andrew Cuomo in January after intense lobbying from local businesses and elected officials.
The study from a national engineering firm concludes a tunnel would be technically feasible, but more expensive than previous estimates. It would cost up to $4.5 billion, take up to 10 years to complete, and require $10 million a year to operate - becoming one of the nation's most expensive transportation projects.
Cuomo and his deputies declined to say what the study means for the tunnel idea, or whether the option will be included in a final state study comparing alternatives. But the national experts say the study should put to rest any thoughts of proceeding with the tunnel option.
"The big question is whether this tunnel will give you the benefits that match the price tag," said Steve Davis of Smart Growth America, an organization that studies transportation and development issues. "Most of the time in areas like Syracuse that aren't growing, it doesn't pencil out. It's just an old outdated strategy that doesn't match the cost that comes with it."
Few interstate highway tunnels are being built in the United States because of the considerable costs and disruptions to communities, and the Syracuse project offers few compelling reasons to be an exception, the experts said.
The handful of tunnel projects under construction involve public-private partnerships or tolls, and have moved forward because they are part of broad community revitalization plans.
Many of those tunnel projects that gain approval have run into delays and cost overruns due to unanticipated problems.
A $3.2 billion tunnel under construction in Seattle has suffered from cost overruns of $60 million. The tunnel, a replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct (Highway 99) in Seattle, is now almost four years behind schedule.
The cost overruns don't include a $480 million lawsuit against the state of Washington by the contractor after a massive tunnel boring machine - named Bertha -- ran into mechanical problems and stalled the project for two years.
Like Interstate 81 in Syracuse, the Seattle project involves the replacement of nearly 2 miles of elevated highway.
But unlike Syracuse, the Seattle tunnel is part of a larger plan for the redevelopment of the city's waterfront, with parks and a scenic roadway linking to a ferry terminal and businesses that cater to tourists along waterfront piers.
Without any far-reaching vision and promise to reinvent Syracuse, it's difficult to justify a tunnel, said Robert Puentes, president and CEO of the Eno Center for Transportation, a non-profit in Washington, D.C. that focuses on improving transportation policy.
"For a place like Syracuse that's not fast growing, and a region that needs an economic shot in the arm, investing $4 billion to do basically what is just traffic mitigation seems excessive," Puentes said in an interview.
"Given the huge cost, by any measure it's a mega project," Puentes said of a potential Interstate 81 tunnel. "But there are other mega projects around the country that have huge payoffs. They are usually designed to create a transformative effect. They are usually intended to do something very different."
The highway tunnels that have moved forward in recent years are in fast-growing communities that include Miami, Denver, the Los Angeles area, and Boston, where the "Big Dig" took a 3.5-mile elevated portion of Interstate 93 and routed it underground.
The Boston project, originally estimated to cost about $2.8 billion, ended up costing $14.6 billion and taking 15 years to complete.
Robert Poole, who has advised the administrations of four U.S. presidents on transportation issues, said the tunnel projects in Miami, Denver and Seattle have been able to move forward only because of public-private partnerships that spread out the financial burden. Denver and Seattle also plan to charge tolls.
Poole said the only way a tunnel project on Interstate 81 in Syracuse would make sense is with a similar arrangement.
"If there were a willingness for people to pay tolls, and you could finance a reasonable amount of the project, you might consider it," Poole said. "Without the tolls, I think it would be very hard to justify the cost."
Poole, director of transportation policy at the Reason Foundation, a free-market think tank, said many communities have considered tunnels as replacements to elevated highways. But most of those projects failed to gather public support for the massive investment.
In the case of Interstate 81 in Syracuse, state transportation officials last year narrowed the choices to two options that are half the price of a tunnel.
One option would replace the existing 1.4-mile viaduct with a new elevated highway at cost estimated at $1.7 billion.
A second option estimated to cost $1.3 billion would tear down the existing viaduct and build a "community grid" that would send traffic into the city on local streets. Those with destinations north or south of Syracuse would be diverted around the city on Interstate 481.
State Sen. John DeFrancisco, R-DeWitt, and six members of Upstate New York's congressional delegation including Rep. John Katko, are among those who supported revisiting the option of a tunnel.
The elected officials say the tunnel alternative shouldn't be ruled out simply because of construction costs.
DeFrancisco said Monday that the state should include the tunnel as one of the options in a draft environmental impact study that will compare each option based on cost, the impact on local businesses and the economy, traffic congestion and other factors.
DeFrancisco has advocated for a hybrid solution called Access Syracuse that would include a tunnel to carry north-south interstate traffic through the city, with local streets on a boulevard above it to carry traffic to Syracuse destinations.
The developer of the Destiny USA shopping mall in Syracuse and some local hotel owners have come out in favor of the tunnel-boulevard option, which would keep traffic flowing past the mall and local hotels and restaurants.
Cities that have torn down elevated interstate highways and replaced them with ground-level streets and boulevards have rarely seen a negative impact on local businesses, said Beth Osborne, a former deputy assistant secretary for transportation policy at the U.S. Department of Transportation.
"Change is always scary," Osborne said. "There's this notion that if people are coming through this route, 'People will never come to me again.' I would argue most people probably intentionally set out to go to the mall, not because it has its own exit off the interstate."
Osborne, now a senior policy adviser at Smart Growth America, said the idea of building a tunnel seems to come up every time a community discusses replacing a viaduct. But ultimately, communities realize the benefits of a tunnel don't outweigh the cost.
"People don't love tunnels," Osborne said. "Tunnels come with an expensive operating and maintenance cost. And the fact is tunnels are more expensive to maintain."
If New York officials move forward with an I-81 tunnel, the state could end up waiting decades for full funding from the federal government, which has covered 80 percent of such projects in the past, Osborne said. And a multi-billion dollar tunnel would force New York to make tough decisions about how to spend its federal transportation aid.
"The federal government is sending the same amount of money every year to the state, no matter what you do," Osborne said. "I've seen these projects get developed before and your project will go on a list. You can have a $4 billion project that goes on the list for 30 years."
Does that mean state officials wasted time and $2 million studying the Interstate tunnel options?
Kirk Narburgh, incoming president of the American Institute of Architects in New York state and CEO of King and King Architects in Syracuse, said he's glad the study was completed.
"I think it pretty much just reinforced what we already knew," Narburgh said. "But you never know. That's why you do the studies. I think it was good to go through the exercise for those people who are really wondering."
vooch has a solution for that. However, only time will tell if such a thing would actually work. Transportation is a hard thing to solve with free markets, for some reason.
My idea would be to rename I-481 around Syracuse as I-81 and widen it to six lanes. At the same time, the original I-81 would become I-81 business (with the green shields instead of RWB) and then the viaduct would be replaced by a boulevard, which was one of the ideas originally being considered.
The widening of the new I-81 route would be to accommodate through traffic that would now desire to speed around the city.
My tax dollars at work. Two million dollars to study an idiotic idea that makes no sense whatsoever on any level other than make-work for the unions. The point of this tunnel would be....what? For better traffic flow thru Syracuse? You can already go around it on I-481. I pass thru here quite often. The few extra minutes on 481 vs. 81 are insignificant and negligible, altho I can’t speak for ‘rush-hour’ traffic on either. And $4.5-billion & 10-years to complete really means $6-billion and 15 years. The I-81 / Route 17 interchange in Binghamton has been under construction over 6 years now without an end in sight. That’s a freekin’ nightmare on weekends when the snowflakes go back to school.
Also, with such a plan, the I-81/I-481 interchange north of the city would need to be modified. Right now, it is a substandard four-leaf clover. High speed connectors between I-81 (future I-81 Business), I-481 (future I-81) and perhaps NY-481 as well would be needed to replace that configuration.
See #22 and #24 for my solution to the problem.
As for tunnels, think Big Dig or that Bertha tunneling machine mess in Seattle.
"and require $10 million a year to operate"to be paid for by, who...
Syracuse’s rush hours last minutes. This isn’t about efficiency. It’s about work for union labor.
Us, silly, who else? :-(
Our view: Tunnel may be the best option for I-81 through Syracuse (12/6)
wonderful...
>
Transportation is a hard thing to solve with free markets, for some reason.
>
Maybe because we haven’t anything resembling a Free Market for some time
Yes, $3.6 billion is a lot of money, but the federal government can be expected to cover about 80 percent of it.
Expected, huh? Put your expectations in one hand...
As for any remainder, NYS is $4 bil in the hole.
We don't have the expletives-deleted money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.