Station 4: Possible future strategies

Here is what others have said:

  • It is certainly a good idea to eliminate left-side entrances, like where 690 enters 81 south just before the Adams exit. Can we get a map of what the impact would be on buildings and roads to do all this straightening and changing of ramps? This seems highly disruptive and potentially destructive.
    (Posted on:5/26/2012 8:25:53 PM)

  • What happens to the existing infrastructure in this option? How many buildings will have to be torn down and will further degrade the area?
    (Posted on:5/21/2012 1:32:27 PM)

  • Neither this nor the status quo is acceptable as they still divide the city in two and bring in unnecessary pollution (noise and air). We need to think beyond the car-centric models we inherited from the 1950s-1970s and build a more livable, walkable city. I-81 was one of the worst things to happen to central Syracuse--perhaps not to CNY, but to the fabric of the city itself.
    (Posted on:5/19/2012 11:18:38 PM)

  • Reconstruction: - No. Need to move thru traffic outside city of Syracuse. - I-81 should be existing 481 from Jamesville north. New road from Lafayette, east of Jamesville to connection at Woodchuck Hill Rd. - Need west side highway. Follow Route 20 to Navarino. North, west of Marcellus and Camillus. Intersect I-90 at Peru.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:57:38 AM)

  • How much additional acquisition and demolition needed to alleviate 2 or 3 issues of negative impact of barrier between neighborhoods?
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:57:16 AM)

  • This strategy should not be acceptable to city residents. We need to take our city back from commuters. This concrete monster divides city neighborhoods and is a hazard for people having to cross Almond as pedestrians, especially upstate faculty, staff, and students. Take it down.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:47:41 AM)

  • I am all for the "reconstruction" strategy. All the better if you can make it look attractive (e.g. Seattle photo). But - most of all - it works!
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:33:46 AM)

  • - A bridge is a bridge is a bridge. - I walk almost daily under I-81 crossing Almond through to Townsend area. Ugly. - The viaduct must go!
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:32:58 AM)

  • 1. Build the western half of 481. 2. Rebuild I-81 through Syracuse exactly as it is today, only higher (so it's not in your face so much, or divisive), and bigger (to accommodate the ever increasing traffic).
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:32:09 AM)

  • Reconstruct I-81 with proper ramps and width. Traffic volume demands it. Going back in time serves no purpose i.e. local parkways, too slow, hurts environment with air pollution. Go with viaducts i.e. Marquette plans. I have seen Orlando, Providence, New Haven etc. and a new viaduct would resolve along with better ramp designs.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:30:31 AM)

  • Reconstruction is best idea. Underground is worst. If no 81 through city - I'd move out of city and go north.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:27:41 AM)

  • Aesthetics can't be the only concern for reconstructing the viaduct - need to consider noise, air pollution, and the impact on surrounding property values. You can put lipstick on a pig - but it is still a pig.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:26:48 AM)

  • I oppose "reconstruction". The deficiencies in the current viaduct would require extensive widening - adding a break down lane, the very dangerous sight lines would require straightening if they are to be eliminated. It would require limiting on/off ramps and access or it would eat up an even larger share of downtown - and in a few years the viaduct would deteriorate again.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:25:37 AM)

  • Not sure that this addresses the "split faction" between downtown and The Hill.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:23:25 AM)

  • This is all part of the conventional spatial wisdom of I-81. Its part of a broader agenda to expand upstate and SU.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:23:01 AM)

  • Replace current elevated I-81 with double-deck (3 lanes each direction) as I have seen in Austin, TX...
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:22:08 AM)

  • Even a nicely reconstructed viaduct is unlikely to create a safe or welcoming pedestrian connection East-West.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:21:07 AM)

  • Move 81 to what is currently route 481, allowing for a better connection to a growing University area, a growing medical area, and a developing downtown!
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:20:34 AM)

  • Wouldn't help transform city and make it vibrant. Another version of status quo and not visionary. Won't fix problem as we'll have to do this all over again in 30 years.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:19:16 AM)

  • Reconstruction is the best option! It will retain the functionality of I-81 but make improvements to interchanges and improve the aesthetics so that underneath the highway is pleasing and I-81 would not be viewed as a barrier.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:18:21 AM)

  • This is the most economical, environmentally friendly option. Any re-routing would be detrimental to the existing infrastructure and put the public at risk. Land values on the East Side and DeWitt would plummet due to increased traffic, noise, and emissions of GHGs.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:09:16 AM)

  • Please note: the I-490/590 interchange in Rochester is know as "the can of worms" for a reason! Its hard to navigate unless you know where you are going.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:07:26 AM)

  • I have traveled extensively by auto. Have seen few places where "viaducts" are so ugly and depressing to walk around or view when driving by. Why? Was Syracuse an experiment in cheap and ugly? Reconstruction may be the answer if it is aesthetically pleasing and resolves safety issues for cars and pedestrians.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:06:01 AM)

  • Just to clarify, the I-490/I-590 interchange pictured here moves traffic more efficiently compared to the original design 24 years ago.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:03:22 AM)

  • Sounds like a good idea. Any other option than rebuilding what is currently in place will not work.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:02:32 AM)

  • You will never resolve the exit/entrance ramp problem or accident rates. the elevated section would continue to "split" the city in two - not a good thing. Also, too expensive.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:02:03 AM)

  • Reconstruction to facilitate local users is superficially attractive by profoundly inefficient. Moving people within the metro area is a problem with more efficient and environmentally and ultimately lower-cost solutions. And truly interstate traffic can bypass Syracuse.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 11:00:30 AM)

  • Reject Rehab strategy: 81 still divides city and interferes with economic development and a more pedestrian friendly city.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 10:33:01 AM)

  • Reject Reconstruction strategy. 81 must go so we can make our city more people friendly, more desirable, and suitable for economic development.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 10:32:20 AM)

  • Reconstruction does not help with tourism/civic attractiveness at all.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 10:31:34 AM)

  • Reject No-Build strategy. 81 still divides the city and interferes with development and a more pedestrian-friendly city.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 10:30:59 AM)

  • You are on the right path. Keep up the good work!
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 10:29:19 AM)

  • Aesthetically pleasing viaduct is an oxymoron.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 10:28:57 AM)

  • Complete the I-81/I-690 interchange to all directions.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:59:40 AM)

  • Slow down the speed limit!
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:59:06 AM)

  • Why reconstruct a terrible part of the city for the benefit of people who don't live in it?
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:58:52 AM)

  • Viaducts don't have to be ugly. See panel at left. The "split" is a myth. With proper walkways and traffic lights, there is adequate passage one to the other.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:58:24 AM)

  • The status quo isn't working - that is why we are here! East access is great, but let's make it less convenient to leave the city at 5.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:57:39 AM)

  • It seems to be the least disruptive option and maintains speedy access to University Hospital from the north.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:56:51 AM)

  • I say just reconstruct I-81.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:56:11 AM)

  • I understand that reconstruction would require much wider cross section, requiring destruction on both sides. I do not support this option/approach.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:55:50 AM)

  • Keep 81 downtown. If we are to be a major city, we need highways in and out of downtown. No traffic jams!
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:55:00 AM)

  • If you must build a raised highway, Seattle version would help.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:54:28 AM)

  • This is no vision for new city.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:54:06 AM)

  • No frontage roads, please! They are not visually pleasing, and view from frontage roads is highway. They will, therefore, not be developed by businesses/housing that do not like the view.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:53:46 AM)

  • Reconstruction should not be an option. The highway has destroyed entire neighborhoods.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:52:47 AM)

  • If you are going to spend all that money elevating the highway, why not instead put it underground and eliminate the division with downtown completely!
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:52:22 AM)

  • Not a viable option for the city's future development.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:50:45 AM)

  • Opposed to Tunnel/Depressed Highway as this area is vulnerable to flooding.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:50:27 AM)

  • I still like this option the best. Reconstruct the bridges to modern standards, widen it to three lanes, and a wide shoulder. We need to keep traffic moving (although the construction phase would be a nightmare). It also minimizes problems from flooding.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:49:52 AM)

  • The Seattle viaduct is actually nice underneath!
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:48:23 AM)

  • Reconstruction: Sorry, but could we please solve the problem this time? Spending millions to end up with the status quo would be a monumental mistake!
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:48:05 AM)

  • I like this option the most - improve safety through design - seems it would be most economic.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:46:53 AM)

  • Bridges are expensive in a cold climate like ours.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:46:06 AM)

  • Why show frontage roads in other areas? We have nice ones near Carousel and the Airport! They work great!
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:45:28 AM)

  • What happens in 2070? Will my grandkids have to spend a trillion dollars to rebuild it then? No more mega structures!
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:44:50 AM)

  • Reconstruction is probably the worst option thus far. As a downtown resident, this is only reinforcing the same problems and barriers. Polishing and improving the elevated sections isn't getting to the root of any of the real problems that plague downtown (walkability, quality of life...).
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:44:02 AM)

  • This strategy is based in 20th century thinking. It won't work for the future.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:42:28 AM)

  • Will this include a connection between 81 north of the city and 690 west of the city?
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:42:03 AM)

  • How about public transport? Monorail!
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:41:32 AM)

  • Viaduct still likely to impose on downtown/University Hill. Frontage road may exacerbate walkability issues in urban area.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:41:08 AM)

  • Should the city sacrifice more land, more homes, more businesses to meet highway design standards?
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:40:29 AM)

  • Reconstruction with higher elevation and enhanced aesthetics would be an acceptable option, but who pays? How much?
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:39:59 AM)

  • So long as pedestrian/surface user needs are considered, this reconstruction is best for Syracuse.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:39:18 AM)

  • Not the worst strategy going forward, but not the best either. Assumes automotive technology stagnates and preferences for faster, larger vehicles continues. If smaller, safer, slower, more fuel-efficient vehicles eventually become the norm, will this highway reconstruction strategy be 'overkill'?
    (Posted on:5/14/2012 11:41:48 PM)

  • Should not be considered as it can lead to more problems.
    (Posted on:5/14/2012 10:02:43 AM)

  • This is a terrible idea. There is nothing beautiful about any highway that cuts a city in two, destroys connectivity, creates dangerous spaces where no-one wants to walk, and generally prevents the city from being knit together as a whole human-scaled environment.
    (Posted on:5/13/2012 9:36:10 PM)

  • Reconstruction/rehab strategy should be eliminated as an option. It doesn't deal with the innate issues of neighborhood restoration and other issues of improving Syracuse's aesthetics or living spaces.
    (Posted on:5/12/2012 7:49:27 AM)

  • This seems to be the best forward move, but I see nothing directly addressing the current lack of an interchange connection for travelers driving south on 81 to get to 690 going west. The location of the current interchange makes the addition of a more typical 4-way interchange very challenging, and might be very disruptive to the commercial district.
    (Posted on:5/10/2012 9:11:04 AM)

  • Consider increasing speed limits to 65 mph or more to improve traffic flow. The viaducts shown in the pictures are beautiful, a wonderful testament to modern engineering. We highly encourage the pursuit of this option.
    (Posted on:5/10/2012 8:34:52 AM)

  • I lived in Brooklyn Heights, NY for 10 years prior to my return to Syracuse as a faculty member. If you compare the results North of Atlantic Avenue (The Heights) and South, it is clear that an above ground 'solution' did not work there and will not work here. In the Heights, the BQE was tiered and the upper layer was the 'promenade', children's playgrounds, chessboards, etc. things focused on a sense of community. Below that was a tier of Northbound lands and a tier of Southbound landes of the Brooklyn Queens expressway (BQE). Expensive, yes.Did it save a neighbor? Unequivocally. compare the Heights in the 70-s -90s with Red Hook, etc south of Atlantic Ave. The lack of disruption to an existiing neighborhood was its salvation. We have already severed the University from down town once, lets not compound the mistake by doing it again. Bill Winter, lowly chemist at ESF
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 11:26:24 PM)

  • Good idea, would be great to get a E690 ramp to I81N
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 8:05:51 PM)

  • It doesn't work. It is the worst space to be in in the city and creates one of the most dangerous places to drive and walk. This should not be considered a viable option.
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 5:17:28 PM)

  • Add Colvin St. access to and from the southern portion of I81 (see my comment on the Rehabilitation strategy). Add access between I-81 in the city and the southern portion of I481. Right now the southern end of I481 connects only to the portion of I81 farther to the south. The combination of the two accesses above would give an alternate route between the University area and Dewitt/Manlius, taking significant traffic pressure away from the East Genesee corridor during rush hour, and especially away from the Harrison St. onramp to I81 north (and I690) during afternoon rush hour. Also, add on- and off-ramps directly between I81 and all the Destiny/Inner Harbor parking area(s), both to the north and south of Hiawatha Blvd, using a frontage road to connect all of those parking areas to both I81 southbound, and Hiawatha Blvd, in a straightforward manner. Avoid requiring southbound traffic from Destiny to travel onto or across Bear Road. This should help to reduce the need to have traffic entering I81 southbound from Destiny, and trying to get to the I690-east exit, cross several lanes of traffic in a short distance.
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 3:09:54 PM)

  • Prefer this stategy. Think we can build a more attractive highway in the same general location.
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 1:34:30 PM)

 
IN THIS STATION
EXPLORE ANOTHER STATION