Station 4: Possible future strategies

Here is what others have said:

  • A tunnel seems like a great idea, but is it feasible? Cost, and the time it would take to build -- it just doesn't seem to be in the cards for Syracuse. Yes. it would be a far smaller and less complex project than the Big Dig, but we also have a far smaller city and less likelihood of getting a return on that investment.
    (Posted on:5/26/2012 8:29:52 PM)

  • I like this one a lot.
    (Posted on:5/21/2012 11:45:42 PM)

  • 2nd best strategy but definitely not the best. THis option address connectivity but could still lead to demolition of buildings and may not be the best strategy due to our inclement weather.
    (Posted on:5/21/2012 1:34:49 PM)

  • Tunnel strategy is best option but also most costly. However a mixed tunnel covered option will work especially highway is on Hill.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:06:24 PM)

  • Open cuts do nothing to solve the barrier issue.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:56:47 PM)

  • Tunnel/ Depression. New possibilities, but seems to be exorbitantly expensive and time consuming. I do like the bike lanes, we need more of those.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:56:02 PM)

  • If it can work, great. We need highways in the city. It's a fact of life for a major city. Our lack of major traffic jams attracts businesses and talent and keeps them here.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:53:29 PM)

  • Ice buildup snow at entrance/exit. Entry/ exit needs are quite wide. Good buildings turn down.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:50:54 PM)

  • Depressed - What is the water table flow the current streets? Is this to be studied?
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:46:15 PM)

  • Project costs will be prohibitive. The money could be better spent.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:42:16 PM)

  • A boulevard/ pedestrian-friendly boulevard seems attractive. I remain concerned about the air pollution issues that would remain in the vicinity of the boulevard. A tunnel would keep the above-ground area bike-able and exhaust-free.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:41:19 PM)

  • Nowhere have I seen what the speed limit in the tunnel would be. Does it remain highway speed? Could only support this if it remains 45-55 MPG, with same exits (i.e. Adams Street, etc.).
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:39:14 PM)

  • I'm skeptical, but it would have traffic going fast, and it would have pedestrian advantages, especially if it is a fully enclosed tunnel with park on top (Almond Street area). Cost is a concern but if the FEDs pay, then do it.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:36:19 PM)

  • Why even consider a tunnel? Didn't you learn from the Big Dig? You won't know exactly what's underground until digging begins. Then, costs begin escalating.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:34:26 PM)

  • A tunnel or sunken road/ highway is my preference from a landscape perspective. But from a practical perspective, a tunnel would be prohibitively expensive. A sunken highway may work if smart removal and ground water issues can be satisfactorily addressed.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:32:21 PM)

  • Unless you cover it like in Boston, it will still be a scar and a worse barrier than the viaduct. To cover is too much money (as evidenced by the Big Dig). Transitions would be long/ awkward.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:28:38 PM)

  • Tunnel, not an option. High ground water table existing utilities. Industrial and historic fill. Need for intricate and energy consuming drainage and pumping facilities. High snowfall and intense rainfall due to impervious area. Way too expensive. Lawsuits by the ton. Taxpayers pay more money.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:26:47 PM)

  • I strongly support the tunnel idea, primarily because of its ability to remove weather from the equation. A highway is vital to the downtown area so putting underground solves transportation and saves DOT from plowing. Weather (snow) keeps us inside so this could be encouraging. Drainage - collect the water from summer water projects?
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:19:24 PM)

  • Raised highway and depressed highway - the same old thinking, just expressed in the opposite direction.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:17:19 PM)

  • The depressed highway would be just as bad, if not worse, as a barrier and aesthetic liability for downtown. Not sure Syracuse has the people or money to warrant a tunnel. This will not be a cost effective method of dealing with I-81.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:14:47 PM)

  • A depressed highway would be a greater divider than an elevated one or a boulevard. It does not appear that there are enough access points such as an important one on Adams Street. What would happen to utilities? How about flooding?
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:11:55 PM)

  • The trench where buried highway descends and ascends will be larger than the elevated highway.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:09:55 PM)

  • Tunnel/ Depressed Highway - No pun intended, but it actually does seem depressing. We'd be trading our old elevated infrastructure problem for a new, depressed infrastructure problem. Re-route the regional traffic. Re-establish the grade-level street grid through downtown.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:07:07 PM)

  • Whatever you do, make it mandatory that local labor is used. Also important, don't displace communities as was done originally, or severely compensate displacement.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:04:32 PM)

  • Tunnels would not solve the congestion issues resulting from the number of people commuting to the Hill.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:16:11 PM)

  • Having an open hospitable area above the tunnel would be great, if that would be the result.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:15:21 PM)

  • What would have to be torn down to create tunnels? For the massive cost involved, we could instead create a really good transit line to take the place of the I-81 route through the city (and also 690).
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:14:40 PM)

  • The depressed highway scenario or concept seems to be the least disruptive option, which still addresses ease of passage through downtown. A number of grade level crossings could be maintained to connect west and east sides. For instance, the Adams Street crossing would still provide quick access to hospitals/ SO.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:13:26 PM)

  • Flooding Issues - Re watershed. Uncovered tunnel, what are the VOC impacts to local environment? A viaduct starts gases mixing at greater height.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:05:14 PM)

  • To maintain current traffic flows (east-west) at this interchange, any depressed tunnel's entrances and exits, for either I-81 or 690 or both, should be built / exit at the Franklin Square and University Hill areas. Current I-81/ 690 interchange, deconstruct so it no longer exists. If existence of depressed tunnels affects housing and or commerce, they need to be fairly compensated. How affect existing business?
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:02:58 PM)

  • Good but water, sewer, electric, gas, etc. lines all need attention and modernization. Archaic, corrupt local govts. unable to do this option well, and higher emergency risks than other options.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:58:25 AM)

  • Least attractive idea from standpoint of traffic distribution, any maintenance.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:53:18 AM)

  • Tunnel concept - no! Ventilation problematic, another hurricane "Hazel" flooded.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:51:43 AM)

  • Depressed highway may make city much less accessible to people with disabilities.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:50:38 AM)

  • I think the tunnel is the ideal solution.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:49:26 AM)

  • Why not put at grade and bridge local streets over top? Pedestrian access too could be above the highway instead of under.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:49:03 AM)

  • Not a good option. Big Dig in Boston horrible to drive in, too expensive.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:47:27 AM)

  • It unfortunate but SYR construction has to take into account water tables and winter freezing and snow. Below grade is not a good idea.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:46:34 AM)

  • Awesome, but too expensive.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:43:33 AM)

  • Yep, this is what the engineers concluded in the "Leos."
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:43:13 AM)

  • Public transportation - monorail.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:41:43 AM)

  • Water table issues. Pump stations required during/ after storms.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:40:16 AM)

  • Impractical and expensive.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:37:15 AM)

  • Lets have a mini Big Dig. Love the way those parks and walkways look.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:36:47 AM)

  • I think the depressed roadway would divide the city even more than the present viaduct.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:36:09 AM)

  • If a sub-grade option is utilized, it would be a tunnel (not depressed highway) or aesthetics, connectivity, etc. will remain an issue.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:35:25 AM)

  • Don't replace our Chinese wall with a moat. This will divide Syracuse more than a via duct.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:34:11 AM)

  • Bid Dig was expensive, but Boston is so much nicer because of it. Go see it.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:29:16 AM)

  • Because Boston's Big Dig worked so well!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:28:36 AM)

  • The depressed version is just that, depressing. It looks more dividing than the current highway. I like the idea of a tunnel with parks etc. above, except cost, drainage, ventilation.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:25:45 AM)

  • Check out the via duct in Stockholm, Sweden that virtually disappears at street level, which is pedestrian and bicycle friendly. Buildings and via duct seem to merge. Via Ducts tastefully lit underneath.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:24:38 AM)

  • The tunnel strategy in Boston was really expensive and took a super long time to complete, causing a lot of congestion and messy traffic in the meantime. Just saying...
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:21:34 AM)

  • Tunnel concept has no benefit with serious challenges and high cost. Eliminate it.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:20:42 AM)

  • Drag racing is too huge of a problem already on Erie Blvd and Taft Rd. A ground boulevard would increase accidents and death. Please consider drag racing problem. 50+ people drag race every night. Seriously.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:19:45 AM)

  • Depressed boulevard would eliminate drag racing due to the fact there would be no stop lights. Stop lights and stop signs lure drag racing.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:16:45 AM)

  • I understand the challenges that this type of highway would cause. Though, the unique spaces of our city would change how people view downtown and Syracuse in general. My major concern would be cost. As the Boston tunnel was very very expensive.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:15:46 AM)

  • Sort of tired of S.U. taking over the city, and we are S.U. people.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:14:10 AM)

  • Tunnel is the optimal solution. It is visually the most attractive, e.g. it is minimally visible. The infrastructure is below ground and in - visible again leaving the above ground space for connecting the city and human beings.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:13:12 AM)

  • This is to me the best solution. It completely eliminates the division with downtown and allows for a aesthetic connection. Yes it is more expensive, but this solution is for decades, so think long term.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:10:09 AM)

  • Seems expensive and would reduce downtown on and off ramp/ access.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:08:03 AM)

  • I like the potential of this option. Worry about the cost. However, space above could help revitalize area.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:07:17 AM)

  • Depressed highway leads to major disconnection between both sides of 81/ the city.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:06:24 AM)

  • Good idea but route through traffic on 481 equals tunnel with active and passive recreation on top in park, shelter, trees, pond, picnic, bike, hike trails, ball fields, tennis, open lawn areas. This is the best scheme shown.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:05:51 AM)

  • No tunnel. They are depressing to drive through, have environmental issues and are difficult to design so as to be aesthetically pleasing (Rochester is awful).
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:02:06 AM)

  • Cost? Is it possible to maintain connection points to downtown? What are the effects on surrounding property values? Lapping over areas north of 690 to link to Salina Street and Franklin Square?
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:00:54 AM)

  • The tunnel is the way to go. But, whichever way is chosen, the project must employ local people.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 10:58:00 AM)

  • Good idea because it will help with traffic and it will help with walkers.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 10:57:05 AM)

  • I grew up in Schenectady, which in its history had a covered bridge that crossed the Mohawk, connecting to Scotia. Maybe a half mile long. What about a roof over Rt. 81 through the city to keep snow and rain off the highway?
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 10:55:52 AM)

  • This option does not eliminate the concrete barrier between east side and downtown and just limits care and pedestrian access across Almond. It increases the number of bridges that need to be maintained. It does not decrease pollution.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 10:53:21 AM)

  • The big thing, avoid long slowdowns. Need to move the main traffic.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 10:48:37 AM)

  • Depressing the highway would divide the city more than it is now. Tunnel would be better.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 10:45:54 AM)

  • Way too expensive an option.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 10:45:17 AM)

  • Pittsburgh has tunnels under the rivers, they smell. There's water dripping and it's scary especially when a vehicle is on fire in one. I also saw people walking in them, indigents. We are at sea level now and we are a swampy area, water will take over. Your concrete spec. need to be extremely good.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 10:41:21 AM)

  • The Boston model is attractive, but it took a long time and cost far more than expected. The soil has to be put somewhere and will be contaminated. I fear the tunnel would cut off local access.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 10:35:57 AM)

  • Depressed highway doesn't seem to improve aesthetics. Isn't Rochester trying to get rid or replace its depressed inner-loop? I like the tunnel option, but I'm guessing cost is significant.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 10:34:17 AM)

  • No tunnel, stupid idea with snow/ ice freezing.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 10:32:30 AM)

  • I like the tunnel design because I think it is so important to connect the hill with downtown.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 10:31:31 AM)

  • Although the idea of green space and pedestrian and bike routes is appealing, I don't think this is the best option. 481 can easily handle through traffic so I dont think there would be enough use to support it. Most of the traffic is going to from hospitals/university, and I don't see how the tunnel would help with access to this area.
    (Posted on:5/15/2012 10:28:55 PM)

  • Love the Boston pictures - also see other cities that have benefited
    (Posted on:5/15/2012 4:22:33 PM)

  • Better than no-build, rehab, or recon strategies, but not as good as boulevard strategy. Walls in depressed roadway provide opportunity for creating aesthetically-pleasing infrastructure (murals, plantings, interesting facade work, etc.). Tunnel might become very dangerous in wintertime. Need to consider impact of snow/ice that could fall here, much like winter of 2010/2011.
    (Posted on:5/14/2012 11:48:01 PM)

  • Nein.
    (Posted on:5/14/2012 9:58:51 AM)

  • Even if this didn't basically maintain a cut right through the heart of our urban fabric, it would still maintain the auto-centric nature of our transit system and prevent great swaths of urban territory to be taken up not with people but with fast-moving cars. The areas outside of cities are fine for that. Cities should behave like cities: people where people live, work, walk and have multiple opportunities for bumping into each other in public and semi-public spaces. This is how great ideas blossom - those chance encounters which do not take place when everyone is in a car.
    (Posted on:5/13/2012 9:40:08 PM)

  • I believe the tunnel strategy to be the most aesthetically pleasing option for the future neighborhood restoration project. It would help to re-connect many city blocks with downtown portions of Syracuse thus restoring small businesses, grocery stores,etc., to the city. This would improve the tax base of the city while improving the green spaces above the underground highway to a much better looking and user-friendly city. Pedestrian and bike path routes would be improved dramatically.
    (Posted on:5/12/2012 8:06:21 AM)

  • I like these ideas better than the previous strategies. With a tunnel it leaves room up top for major improvements, innovative ideas, green space, and other endless possibilities that are not possible due to a depressed highway, or the current viaduct. Snow removal would essentially be non existent underground, although the need for a efficient drainage system would be in the spring. That's the one thing that bothers me, Syracuse was initially a swamp. Other than that, possibly fuse this idea with the boulevard and rail system, and I think that would be the best solution. If not the most impressive.
    (Posted on:5/11/2012 12:18:10 AM)

  • this could very well work out the best. it would keep traffic moving smoothly but still allow for traffic overhead and pedestrians. we sort of have that concept near court st area is over 81
    (Posted on:5/10/2012 6:55:01 PM)

  • Nothing, looks great. We should do this.
    (Posted on:5/10/2012 8:37:00 AM)

  • Montreal would be another model to consider.
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 9:52:15 PM)

  • I strongly favor a tunnel rather than a depressed highway. As I've commented elsewhere on this website, a tunnel keeps traffic noise underground, and it eliminates the "eyesore" of a highway ripping through the heart of downtown. Depressed highways like Rochester's Inner Loop are just as "depressing" (pun intended) as an elevated highway. A depressed highway still divides the city just as much as a viaduct. Not to mention, a depressed highway means Almond Street, which now runs directly underneath I-81, would need to be split to run on either side of I-81. That could involve demolishing more buildings than would be required for a tunnel, and it would mean more traffic lights (because you'd need separate lights for northbound Almond and southbound Almond at each cross-street), which mean more delays. A depressed highway is also prone to flooding, and it still needs to be sanded/salted and plowed in the winter time. A tunnel is covered, protected from the elements. If the pavement isn't being scraped and salted every day, it'll last longer. Ventilation shouldn't be a problem -- there are tunnels underneath almost every part of Manhattan and they do just fine. A tunnel would allow Almond Street to maintain its current alignment as much as possible, within the same width (or even less) than it requires now. Without the I-81 viaduct supports in the way, these intersections could be redesigned to provide better, safer traffic flow. Any excess space could provide for grassy or landscaped medians, and perhaps as others have suggested, room for a walking/biking trail.
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 8:27:31 PM)

  • Consideration for a large snowfall, Where would the snow be plowed for a very large snowfall?
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 8:07:56 PM)

  • Destiny USA and Inner Harbor parking lot connections at the northern terminus; Colvin St. connections to/from the more-southern portions of I81; connections from the southern portion of I481 to/from the portion of I81 immediately to its north. (See my comments in the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction strategies). The comments about the added cost of drainage and other maintenance should be balanced by reduced cost from snow removal, especially during ultra-snowy winters when there is no space within the viaduct area to push the excess snow. This will greatly reduce the risks seen during the winter of 2004, when portions of the viaduct turned into "ski jumps for vehicles", and drivers of several vehicles (including one driven by Jason Rhoades, the former mayor of East Syracuse) plunged to their deaths.
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 3:17:55 PM)

  • Do not like this strategy especially in light of all the problems they had in Boston.
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 1:36:11 PM)

  • My favorite option is the depressed highway. The tunnel would be very expensive. I'm originally from Montreal and we have such a depressed highway. It helps that you can see the sun and also the landmarks as you go by. You can get off the road and stop for lunch or dinner or to visit something interesting. From the perspective of the pedestrian you have a clear line of sight and makes the neighborhood more unified. Definitely would support the depressed highway.
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 10:41:22 AM)

 
IN THIS STATION
EXPLORE ANOTHER STATION